title: Case C-424/02: Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
25.1.2003              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 19/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities          Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
necessary for incorporating Directive 1999/31/EC into dom-               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
estic law so that such process is complete within the time limit         period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
laid down, irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and            expired on 1 January 1990 without the United Kingdom of
to inform the Commission thereof.                                        Great Britain and Northern Ireland having enacted the pro-
                                                                         visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                         the conclusions of the Commission.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom              (1 ) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 23.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 42, 12.02.1987, p. 43.
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.
( 1) OJ L 182, 16.07.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
                                                                         trative (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) by judgment of
                                                                         that Court of 21 November 2002 in the appeal brought
                                                                         by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye, against the Minister
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Com-                                   for Public Service and Administrative Reform
mission of the European Communities against the United
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-425/02)
                         (Case C-424/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/34)
                          (2003/C 19/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                European Communities by order of the Cour Administrative
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of              (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) (Administrative Court, Grand
the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by the                      Duchy of Luxembourg) of 21 November 2002, received at the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   Court Registry on 25 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling
X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an                in the appeal brought by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye,
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       against the Minister for Public Service and Administrative
                                                                         Reform on the following question:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Having regard to the provisions of Directives 77/187/EEC (1),
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             98/50/EC (2) and 2001/23/EC (3) identified herein, in the event
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              of the transfer of an undertaking from a non-profit-making
      Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC requiring             association, which is a legal person under private law, to the
      Member States to take the measures necessary to give               State as transferee, is it permissible for the transferor’s rights
      priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration (1),      and obligations to be taken over only in so far as they are
      as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC on waste oils ( 2) or,          compatible with the State’s own rules of public law, in
      in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the          particular in the area of remuneration, where the detailed
      Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                provisions and amounts of compensation are laid down by
      Northern Ireland has failed to fully fulfil its obligations        grand ducal regulation, bearing in mind that the status of
      under that Directive;                                              public-sector employee confers legal benefits in the areas of,
                                                                         inter alia, career development and job stability on the staff
2)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             concerned, and that, in the event of disagreement as regards
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                          ‘substantial changes’ to the employment relationship within


title: Case T-596/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Batmore Capital v EUIPO — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative trade mark POCKETBOOK — Earlier national figurative marks POCKET — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Batmore Capital v EUIPO — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK)
   (Case T-596/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative trade mark POCKETBOOK - Earlier national figurative marks POCKET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 112/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Batmore Capital Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Univers Poche (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Dumont, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2015 (Case R 1952/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Univers Poche and Batmore Capital.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Batmore Capital Ltd to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Univers Poche before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case T-673/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — Guardian Europe v European Union (Non-contractual liability — Representation of the European Union — Barring of actions — Nullification of the legal effects of a decision which has become final — Precision of the application — Admissibility — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time — Equal treatment — Material damage — Losses sustained — Loss of profit — Non-material damage — Causal link)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — Guardian Europe v European Union
   (Case T-673/15) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Representation of the European Union - Barring of actions - Nullification of the legal effects of a decision which has become final - Precision of the application - Admissibility - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time - Equal treatment - Material damage - Losses sustained - Loss of profit - Non-material damage - Causal link))
   (2017/C 239/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guardian Europe Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Louis, lawyer, and C. O’Daly, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union represented by the European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, A. Dawes and P. van Nuffel, Agents), and by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, Agents).

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant because of, first, the length of the proceedings in the case giving rise to the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494), and, secondly, the infringement of the principle of equal treatment in Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass) and in the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay compensation of EUR 654 523,43 to Guardian Europe Sàrl for the material damage sustained by that company because of the infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time in the case giving rise to the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T-82/08, EU:T:2012:494). That compensation is to be adjusted by applying compensatory interest, starting from 27 July 2010 and continuing up to the date of delivery of the present judgment, at the annual rate of inflation determined, for the period in question, by Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union) in the Member State where that company is established;

               2.

               The compensation referred to in point 1 shall be increased by default interest, starting from the date of delivery of the present judgment until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Guardian Europe to bear the costs incurred by the European Union, represented by the European Commission;

               5.

               Orders Guardian Europe, on the one hand, and the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the other, to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-362/10: Action brought on 20 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/4

         Action brought on 20 July 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-362/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. La Pergola and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary for the proper transposition of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, (1) the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the applicant’s submission, the Republic of Poland has hitherto not adopted national measures correctly transposing Directive 2003/98 into national law. The Ustawa z 6 września 2001 r. o dostępie do informacji publicznej (Law of 6 September 2001 on access to public information), which was notified to the Commission, does not relate to the re-use of public sector information, because it does not even contain a definition of ‘re-use’. For that reason alone, the rights and obligations resulting from that Law cannot constitute a correct transposition of Directive 2003/98.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90.


title: Case T-385/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Loops v EUIPO (Shape of a toothbrush) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a toothbrush — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2016 — Loops v EUIPO (Shape of a toothbrush)
   (Case T-385/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a toothbrush - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 270/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Loops, LLC (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2015 (Case R 1917/2014-2), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a toothbrush as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Loops, LLC, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case C-53/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and in Case T-440/12 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/19

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and in Case T-440/12 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission
   (Case C-53/15 P)
   (2015/C 118/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-426/10 and T-575/10 and in Case T-440/12 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
   The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-575/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-426/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels, by judgment of that court of 11 October 1996 in the case of Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau against Prolacto NV (Case C-346/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96              EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370/ 7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      2 . Does at least the principle, to be regarded as part of
                                                                               Community law, that national law is to be interpreted
                                                                               in a Community manner consistent with EC law,
According to the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                      require national provisions on equal treatment with
Treaty, a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be                   respect to benefits from occupational pension schemes
achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed.                     to be interpreted and applied in harmony with the
It follows that each Member State is obliged to realize the                    requirements and limitations ( prohibition of retroactive
objective of the directive prior to the expiry of the time                    effect) of Community law ?
limit prescribed therein, that is to say, to transpose it into
domestic law in such a way that its practical effect is
achieved in full . The Federal Republic of Germany has
failed to discharge that obligation to transpose the Directive
in full within the time-limit laid down in Article 34 ( 1 )
thereof ( 14 June 1994 ).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg, Brussels, by judgment of that court of
(M OJNoL 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    11 October 1996 in the case of Belgisch Interventie- en
                                                                                Restitutiebureau against Prolacto NV
                                                                                ( Case C-346/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 17 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen by order of that court
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 10 February 1995 in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                      Hannover v. Almut Sattler                          European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, of
                           ( Case C-345 /96                              11 October 1996 , received at the Court Registry on
                             ( 96/C 370/ 16 )                            21 October 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau against Prolacto
                                                                         NV on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities . by an order of the Third Chamber
of the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour                 In the context of a tender for the supply of skimmed milk
Court of Lower Saxony) of 10 February 1995 , which was                   power as food aid on the basis of Commission Regulations
                                                                         ( EEC ) Nos 345/87 ( ] ) and 1358/87 ( 2 ) of 3 February 1987
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 1996, for a
                                                                         and 15 May 1987, respectively, and the associated
preliminary ruling in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                                                                         tendering securities lodged pursuant to Article 12 of
Hannover v. Almut Sattler on the following questions :
                                                                         Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 ( 3 ) of 17 May
                                                                         1983 , may a legal person who subsequently failed to fulfil
1 . ( a ) Does Community law require precedence of                       its obligations and did not effect delivery be also the subject
            application or validity ( under the second paragraph         of a claim for payment of compensation on the part
            of Article 5 and Article 189 of the EC Treaty ) over         of the Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau ( Belgian
            national provisions of the Member States which               intervention and restitution agency ) pursuant to Article 25
            could or would be applicable, by way of                      ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 when all the tendering
            concurrence of claims, to the same factual situation         securities have been declared forfeit to that agency ?
            and with the same aim of supporting claims to
            equal treatment in occupational pension schemes,             (!) OJ No L 34 , 3 . 2 . 1987, p . 8 .
            as for example in Germany — generally — the                  ( 2 ) OJNoL 131 , 15 . 5 . 1987, p . 1 .
            employment law principle of equal treatment or —             ( 3 ) OJNoL 142 , 17. 5 . 1983 , p . 1 .
            specifically — paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the Beschafti
            gungsforderungsgesetz ( Employment Promotion
            Law ) 1985 ?
      ( b ) Does the precedence of Community law in such a
            conflict, where Community law confers benefits               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
            under occupational pension schemes only if and in            Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Contencioso
            so far as they are attributable to periods of                Administrativo, Sección Primera, by order of that court of
            employment after 17 May 1990, whereas the                    3 July 1996 in the case of Soldred SA v. Administración
            national provisions regulate the same factual                                          General del Estado
            situation differently in that they do not exclude                                         Case C-347/96 )
            retroactive effect, apply generally ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 18 )
      (c ) Does such precedence exist only if the economic
            objective of Article 119, which exists alongside the
            social objective, namely the creation of equal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            competitive opportunities, is specifically affected ?         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior


title: Case T-548/12: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2015 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark REDROCK — Earlier national word marks ROCK, KEPROCK, FLEXIROCK, FORMROCK, FLOOR-ROCK, TERMAROCK, KLIMAROCK, SPEEDROCK, DUROCK, SPLITROCK, PLANAROCK, TOPROCK, KLEMMROCK, FIXROCK, SONOROCK PLUS, VARIROCK, SONOROCK and MASTERROCK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2015 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)
   (Case T-548/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark REDROCK - Earlier national word marks ROCK, KEPROCK, FLEXIROCK, FORMROCK, FLOOR-ROCK, TERMAROCK, KLIMAROCK, SPEEDROCK, DUROCK, SPLITROCK, PLANAROCK, TOPROCK, KLEMMROCK, FIXROCK, SONOROCK PLUS, VARIROCK, SONOROCK and MASTERROCK - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 279/38)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Mahelka, P. Geroulakos and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Redrock Construction s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D. Krofta, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2012 (Case R 1596/2011-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG and Redrock Construction s.r.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-19/01: Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/23
Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Regulation (EC)           In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
                              No 40/94 on the Community                 he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
                              trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe-        certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
                              ment of the EC Treaty (Articles           Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
                              28 and 29 EC) — No similarity             particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
                              between the conflicting trade             that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
                              marks — Impermissible splitting-          by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
                              up of the mark into its individual        constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
                              component parts — Failure to              EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
                              have regard to the case-law of the        the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
                              Court of Justice concerning the           practising at that Bar.
                              overall impression given by a
                              mark — Right of a competitor in
                              the market to combine the name            By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
                              of its main products with its com-        applicant’s complaint.
                              pany name — Change in the legal
                              position since registration of the
                              opposing mark.
                                                                        In the present case, the applicant submits inter alia that the
                                                                        Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
                                                                        examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
                                                                        assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
                                                                        essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
                                                                        86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
                                                                        the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
                                                                        and effects of the legal framework at Community level
                                                                        regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-                      89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                         (Case T-18/01)
                        (2001/C 108/43)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony                      Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of                                   European Communities
Merriman White, London (UK).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case T-19/01)
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
      2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu-                                        (2001/C 108/44)
      lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
      of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
      Bar of England and Wales
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
                                                                        Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course,            Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales            and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
and the practice of law as a barrister.                                 (UK).
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/24                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.4.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Furthermore, the applicants allege that the measures intro-
                                                                        duced via the regulation violate the limits of the Commission’s
                                                                        implementing powers as to the WTO-compatibility of the
—      Order the defendant to pay damages pursuant to Article           licensing regime and the division into ‘country allocations’,
       288 EC for the losses suffered by it through the unlawful        and that the Commission has acted in breach of its clear
       measures introduced by Commission Regulation                     mandate from the Council.
       2362/98 (1), all sums to be increased with compensatory
       interest at a rate of 8 % to be applied from the day on
       which the damage materialised.                                   Finally, the applicants contend that the measures introduced
                                                                        by Regulation No 2362/98 infringe the principle of non-
                                                                        discrimination, the freedom to pursue trade or business as well
                                                                        as the principle of good faith in international law and the
—      Order the defendant to pay legal interest on such sums as
                                                                        legitimate expectations traders can derive from that.
       are found to be due at a rate of 8 %
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings        (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
                                                                            laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
                                                                            the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                        (2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        (3) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 28.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants operate their business in the EC as a single
economic entity, and the core of the their operations is the
marketing, distribution and sourcing of bananas.
As the factual and legal background for their claims, the               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli
applicants have indicated that in 1993 the EC ‘banana                   and 5 other employees of the European Central Bank
regime’ was introduced through Council Regulation 404/93 (2).                         against the European Central Bank
Following a dispute settlement procedure in the WTO finding
aspects of this regime to be WTO-incompatible, the EC agreed                                      (Case T-20/01)
to make its banana regime compatible by 1 January 1999.
This was purportedly done by Council Regulation No
1637/98 (3) and Commission Regulation No 2362/98. How-                                           (2001/C 108/45)
ever, the EC’s amended banana regime was also found to be
WTO-incompatible in two supplemental WTO rulings issued
in April 1999 which related inter alia to the system for                                   (Language of the case: German)
distribution of import licences and the division of a yearly
tariff rate quota of 2 553 000 tonnes opened for imports from
Latin America into ‘country allocations’. In spite of those             An action against the European Central Bank was brought
rulings, these allegedly unlawful measures remain in force.             before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli and 5 other
                                                                        employees of the European Central Bank, represented by
                                                                        Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsan-
The applicants state that as a result of the discriminatory             wälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
distribution of licences as introduced by Regulation No
2362/98, they have suffered a loss of market share and have
been forced to buy or lease the use of import licences and to           The applicants claim that the Court should:
accept unfavourable contract conditions. The applicants claim
to have sustained substantial damage and losses caused by the           (1) annul the rule laid down in Article 8.1.0 of the provisional
defendant’s breach of law, and under Articles 235 and 288 EC                  Staff Rules, as brought into force by the European Central
they claim compensation for a continuing loss of profit and                   Bank with effect from 16 August 2000, and the rule laid
for non-recurring costs which would not have been incurred                    down in Article 7.2.0 of the provisional Staff Rules, as
had the measures in the regulation not been introduced.                       brought into force with effect from 26 September 2000,
                                                                              alternatively annul those rules as regards the relationship
                                                                              between the defendant and the applicants;
The applicants submit that Regulation No 2362/98 is unlawful
in that it infringes superior rules of law, i.e. WTO rules              (2) annul Administrative Circular 01/2000 concerning the
and obligations, as well as the fundamental policy of the                     Rules for Business Travel, alternatively annul Administrat-
Community to amend the banana regime in order to make it                      ive Circular 01/2000 as between the defendant and the
WTO-compatible.                                                               applicants;


title: Case C-460/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2013 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10 Italian Republic v Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/2

         Appeal brought on 8 August 2013 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 30 May 2013 in Case T-454/10 Italian Republic v Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav)
   (Case C-460/13 P)
   2013/C 352/02
   Language of the Procedure: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, S. Varone, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav),
   Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon),
   European Commission,
   Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA),
   Confederazione Cooperative Italiane

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order the parties opposing the appeal to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   These proceedings concern an appeal against the judgment in Case T-454/10 in which the General Court annulled:

               (a)

               the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 (1) and Article 50(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (2)‘in so far as they provide that the value of “[non-]genuine processing activities” is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing’.

               (b)

               Article 60(7) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011, which provides for investments and activities related to the transformation of products, in its entirety.

         According to the Italian Republic, the provisions referred to in point (a) above do not conflict with Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, since they introduce support for activities for which no provision is made in the regulation and simply lay down in the interests, inter alia, of greater simplification, the method of calculating a value serving as a parameter for Community aid.
   The interpretation adopted by the General Court would result in an unjustified difference of treatment within organisations of producers of fruit and vegetables as the marketing of the same product would be subsidised differently depending on whether or not the producer organisation carries out the actual processing.
   As regards point (b) — annulment of Article 60(7) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 — the General Court’s decision is flawed to the extent that it finds that private processors are discriminated against as compared to processors, the majority of whom are set up as cooperatives, who are members of producer organisations.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350 p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1)


20150731050616812015/C 270/192392015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150522151622Case C-239/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1520120150522EN0019152162Appeal brought on 22 May 2015 by RFA International, LP against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-466/12: RFA International, LP v European Commission
   (Case C-239/15 P)2015/C 270/19Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Appellant: RFA International, LP (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer, Prof. D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor, E. Borovikov, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

            —

            Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

            —

            Give a final judgment on the pleas of the appellant’s action for annulment where the stage of the procedure so permits, and partially annul the decisions contested at first instance;

            —

            In the alternative, refer the case for reconsideration to the General Court;

            —

            Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of the appellant’s pleas in law in its judgment as follows:

            —

            The General Court erred in its legal assessment of the Commission’s position on the relevance of a single economic entity (an integrated sales department of the exporting producer, located outside of the country of export) for the purposes of applying Article 2(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (
                  1
               ) (‘the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation’) and erred in law by abstaining from ruling on the arguments of the Appellant based on the case law in Interpipe and Nikopolsky, thereby affecting the appellant’s right to judicial review,

            —

            The General Court erred in law, including in its assessment of the case law it examined, when it placed the burden of proof concerning the extent of the amount of adjustment under Article 2(9) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation on the interested party who claims that the adjustment is excessive on account of a demonstrated existence of a single economic entity;

            —

            The General Court erred in law by ruling that the existence of a single economic entity was not an issue in the contested decisions and before the General Court, and by basing its ruling on the premise that the Commission’s rejection of the existence of a single economic entity was not contained in the text of the contested decisions; the General Court failed to assess that such a rejection by the Commission was made in the parallel interim review investigation conducted pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, relating to the same imports and covering the same investigation period.

      (
         1
      )	Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ L 343, p. 51


title: Case T-176/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission (European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) — Reduction in financial assistance — Application for annulment — Venture capital fund — Deadline for the completion of investment projects — Procedure — Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons — Action for damages)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission
   (Case T-176/06) (1)

   (European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) - Reduction in financial assistance - Application for annulment - Venture capital fund - Deadline for the completion of investment projects - Procedure - Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty - Principle of proportionality - Statement of reasons - Action for damages)
   (2008/C 209/81)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA (Potenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, D. Fioretti, S. Frazzani and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and M. Velardo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund in favour of an overall allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, granted under the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions of Italy covered by Objective 1, and application for damages for the harm caused by that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-143/05: Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/39

         Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-143/05)
   (2005/C 115/69)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by the United Kingdom, represented by C. Jackson, agent, assisted by M. Hoskins, Barrister.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the refusal of the Commission contained in its letter of 1 February 2005 to consider the amended national allocation plan submitted by the United Kingdom on 10 November 2004; and;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom's costs of this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 30 April 2004, the United Kingdom notified a provisional national allocation plan to the Commission pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1). A number of ongoing activities were identified in the plan, which according to the United Kingdom had a provisional character.
   On 7 July 2004, the Commission adopted Decision C(2004)2515/4 final concerning the submitted plan identifying certain incompatibilities with Annex III of the Directive.
   Following the completion of the activities identified in the provisional national allocation plan, the United Kingdom notified the Commission on 10 November 2004 that it wished to amend the provisional national allocation plan to take account of the results of this work.
   By letter of 1 February 2005 the Commission informed the United Kingdom that its request to amend its national allocation plan was inadmissible as an increase of the total quantity of allowances of 19,8 million tonnes did not aim at addressing the incompatibilities identified in the Commission's Decision.
   The United Kingdom challenges this refusal and submits that the Commission's letter of 1 February 2005 is a reviewable act under Article 230 EC as it is intended to have legal effects since the Commission has adopted a definitive position as to whether the United Kingdom is entitled to make amendments to the provisional national allocation plan.
   The United Kingdom further alleges that the Commission's letter of 1 February 2005 is wrong as a matter of law since:

               —

               Articles 9(1), 9(3) and 11(1) of the Directive allow for amendments to be made to the total quantity of allowances that a Member State will allocate after the adoption of a decision by the Commission under Article 9(3) of the Directive,

               —

               Article 3(3) of the Commission's Decision C(2004)2515/4 final envisages that amendments may be made to deal with matters other than the incompatibilities identified in the Decision, and

               —

               the United Kingdom cannot fully comply with its obligations under Article 11(1) of the Directive until the Commission has considered the amended national allocation plan in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 275 of 25 October 2003, p. 32.


title: Case T-6/07: Action brought on 2 January 2007 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/34

         Action brought on 2 January 2007 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)
   (Case T-6/07)
   (2007/C 56/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Galderma SA (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tihomir Lelas
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 25 October 2006 in Case R 0146/2006-4 in so far as the opposition against the goods ‘Pharmaceuticals; pharmaceutical and veterinary products and preparations for health care; soaps; cosmetics and hair lotions’ was rejected;

               —

               refuse Community trade mark application 003088986 NANOLAT for the goods mentioned above;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tihomir Lelas

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark Nanolat for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 (application No 3 088 986)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark TANNOLACT for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks

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


title: Case C-476/08 P: Appeal brought on 6 November 2008 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2008 in Case T-59/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/13

         Appeal brought on 6 November 2008 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2008 in Case T-59/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-476/08 P)
   (2009/C 19/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani, Δικηγόροι)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission (DG Agriculture) to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant bases its appeal against the judgment T-59/05 of the Court of First Instance on the following grounds:
   It is submitted that the Court of First Instance committed a breach of procedure by refusing to recognise an evident discrepancy between the award criteria as set out in section 5.2 of the EvCo Report and those mentioned in section 5.4 of the same Report and by misinterpreting the relevant procedural rules on the burden of proof. More specifically, the Court of First Instance does not refer to any evidence in support of its qualification as ‘typographical error’ of an obvious discrepancy, and no such evidence can by any means be deduced from the content of the Evaluation Report itself.
   Further, the judgment fails to observe the consequences of the Commission's infringement of its duty of diligence and of the principle of good administration. Since the Court of First Instance, despite observing that the Commission infringed the rule of law, did not proceed into annulling the Commission's Decision on this ground, the Court of First Instance undoubtedly failed in applying the relevant provisions.
   It is submitted that the Court of First Instance also failed to apply the relevant provisions on the duty of the contracting authority to provide reasons, which would lead it to annul the award decision; only scores and some general comments from the Evaluation Report have been submitted to the Appellant by the letter of 10 December 2004. In this sense the Court of First Instance distorted the evidence adduced before it, and for this reason its judgment should be annulled.


title: Case F-33/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 October 2009 — V v Commission (Staff case — Members of the contract staff — Recruitment — Refusal to employ the applicant for physical unfitness to perform her duties — Validity of the procedure — Validity of the medical examination prior to appointment — Preparatory acts)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 October 2009 — V v Commission
   (Case F-33/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Members of the contract staff - Recruitment - Refusal to employ the applicant for physical unfitness to perform her duties - Validity of the procedure - Validity of the medical examination prior to appointment - Preparatory acts)
   2009/C 297/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Ronzi, A. Grauling and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Staff case — Annulment of the Commission decision of 15 May 2007 informing the applicant that she did not fulfil the physically fitness requirements necessary for her to perform her duties and a claim for damages for material and non-material loss.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of V’s costs;

               3.

               Orders V to bear half of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 26.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 16 February 1995 in Case C-425/93 -reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht): Calle Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse für den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg (Social Security for migrant workers - Determination of the legislation applicable)

text:
 No C 74/2           | EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25 . 3 . 95
     which tax is to be levied on the income received by him           with      the    Bundesanstalt      fur   Arbeit,   the      Bundes
     within its territory since that Article does not allow a          versicherungsanstalt fur Angestellte und Mr Borge Wandahl
    Member State, as regards the collection of direct taxes,           as joined parties in the main proceedings — on the
     to treat a national ofanother Member State employed in            interpretation of Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a) and (2 ) (b) (i ) of Council
    the territory ofthe first State in the exercise ofhis right of     Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
    freedom of movement less favourably than one of its                social security schemes to employed persons, to
    own nationals in the same situation.                               self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                       moving within the Community and Article 12a of Council
2 . Article 48 of the Treaty must be interpreted as                    Regulation No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
    precluding the application of rules of a Member State              procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 ,
    under which a worker who is a national of, and resides             in the versions codified by Council Regulation (EEC )
    in, another Member State and is employed in the first              No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2) — the Court ( Second
    State is taxed more heavily than a worker who resides in           Chamber), composed of F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur),
    the first State and performs the same work there when,             G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
    as in the main action, the national of the second State            General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the
    obtains his income entirely or almost exclusively from             Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 February 1995, the
    the work performed in the first State and does not                 operative part of which is as follows:
    receive in the second State sufficient income to be subject
    to taxation there in a manner enabling his personal and             1 . the situation of a Danish worker, residing in Denmark
    family circumstances to be taken into account.                           and employed exclusively by an undertaking with its
                                                                             seat in Germany, who in the course of that employment
3 . Article 48 of the Treaty must be interpreted as                          relationship, regularly, for several hours each week and
    precluding a provision in the legislation of a Member                    for a period not limited to twelve months pursues his
    State on direct taxation under which the benefit of                      activity partly in Denmark, falls under Article 14
    procedures such as annual adjustment of deductions at                    (2) (b) (i) of Council Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June
    source in respect of wages tax and the assessment by the                 19-71 on the application ' of social security schemes to
    administration ofthe tax payable on remuneration from                    employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
    employment is available only to residents, thereby                       members of their families moving within the
    excluding natural persons who have no permanent                          Community.
    residence or usual abode on its territory but receive
    income there from employment.                                      2 . 'Activity' within the meaning of Article 14 (2) (b) (i) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 covers the term
(!) OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .                                             'employed'.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 332, 18 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22. 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Second Chamber)
                      of 16 February 1995
in Case C-425/93 -reference for a preliminary ruling from             References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht): Calle              Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Sezione II — by
Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG v. Allgemeine                        orders of that court of 19 October 1994 in the case of ( 1 )
                                                                      Radio Torre, (2 ) Rete A Sri, (3 ) Vallau Italiana
  Ortskrankenkasse für den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg ( ! )
                                                                      Promomarket Sri, (4 ) Radio Italia Solo Musica Sri and
(Social Security for migrant workers — Determination of               Others, ( 5 ) GETE (Tele Nova), ( 6) ToscanaTV and Othres,
                   the legislation applicable)                        and ( 7) Nuova Antenna Tre SpA and Others v. Ministero
                          ( 95/C 74/03 )                                              delle Poste e Telecommunicazioni
                                                                      ( Cases C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/94, C-338/94 and
                (Language of the case: German)                                        C-339/94, C-21/95 and C-22/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/04 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by orders of the Tribunale
In Case C-425/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, Sezione II ( Regional
of the EC Treaty from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                    Administrative Court, Lazio, Second Chamber) of
Landessozialgericht (Higher Social Court, Schles                     1 9 October 1 994, which were received at the Court Registry
wig-Holstein ) ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the             on 12 December and 28 December 1994 and 30 January and
proceedings pending before that court between Calle                   1 February 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ( 1 )
Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG and Allgemeine                       Radio Torre ( C-328/94 ), (2 ) Rete A Sri ( C-329/94 ), ( 3 )
Ortskrankenkasse fur den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg,                   Vallau Italiana Promomarket Sri ( C-337/94 ), (4 ) Radio


15.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 259/15
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              Grounds of claim:             —     Contrary to what is stated in
9 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered                                                  the contested decision, the
office is in Barcelona (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela                                                trade marks of which the
Giménez.                                                                                applicant is the proprietor
                                                                                have been put to genuine use
                                                                                in the market, thus fulfilling
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                                 the      requirements       of
                                                                                Article 56(3) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94 (1);
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market                                             —     Contrary to what is stated in
      (OHIM) in Case 258/2000-1 on the ground that the                                                      the contested decision, there
      disputed Community trade mark number 56 739 GIOR-                                                     is likelihood of confusion
      GIO AIRE may not be registered pursuant to                                                            between the Community tra-
      Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;                                                          de mark and the trade marks
                                                                                of which the applicant is the
—     declare invalid that Community trade mark;                                                            proprietor, since the differ-
                                                                                ences between them to not
                                                                                allow the consumer to differ-
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                                                    entiate between them.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.                      Removal from the Register of Case T-207/99 (1)
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (2001/C 259/26)
Registered Community          Word mark ‘GIORGIO AIRE’ —
trade mark:                   Application No 56 739 for goods                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
                              in Class 3
                                                                        By order of 17 May 2001, the President of the Second
Proprietor of the right to    Applicant                                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the trade mark or sign                                                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
asserted in the invalidity                                              Case T-207/99, Asociación Profesional de Fruticultores del
proceedings:                                                            Jalón Medio v Commission of the European Communities.
Trade mark or sign            Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,          (1) OJ C 333 of 14.2.00.
asserted in the invalidity    ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’,
proceedings:                  registered for goods in Class 3
                              and ‘AIR GIORGI’, registered for
                              goods in Class 5                                 Removal from the Register of Case T-67/01 R
Decision of the Cancel-       Application for declaration of                                     (2001/C 259/27)
lation Division:              invalidity of the trade mark
                              upheld                                                      (Language of the case: English)
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the          By order of 10 May 2001, the President of the Chamber of the
Appeal:                       Cancellation Division and dis-            Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                              missal of the application for dec-        ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-67/0 R, JCB
                              laration of invalidity                    Service v Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case T-27/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — AC-Treuhand v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue — Fines — Application for annulment — Meaning of ‘undertaking’ — Principle of the legality of offences and penalties — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable period — Rights of the defence — Late notification of the investigation — Maximum of 10 % of turnover — Punishment of two infringements in one decision — Concept of a single infringement — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Duration of the administrative procedure — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Symbolic fine — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — AC-Treuhand v Commission
   (Case T-27/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue - Fines - Application for annulment - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ - Principle of the legality of offences and penalties - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period - Rights of the defence - Late notification of the investigation - Maximum of 10 % of turnover - Punishment of two infringements in one decision - Concept of a single infringement - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Duration of the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Symbolic fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   2014/C 78/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: AC-Treuhand AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Bodenstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 October 1997 in Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96: Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf (SCK) and Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven (FNK) v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Mobile cranes - Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Acting within a reasonable time - Certification system - Prohibition on hiring - Recommended rates - Internal rates - Fines)

text:
C 387/ 14                 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 12 . 97
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in
                          of 15 October 1997                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                       Rue v. Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-331/94 : IPK-München GmbH v. Commission of                   ( Agents : initially Norbert Lorenz and Géraud de Bergues,
                  the European Communities (')                         then Klaus Wiedner and Heinz-Joachim Freund ) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of Commission Decision
(Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project —
                                                                       94/210/EC of 29 March 1994 relating to a proceeding
Reduction — Application for annulment — Admissibility
                                                                       pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty ( IV/
— Confirmatory act — Legal certainty — Legitimate
                                                                       33.941 — HOV-SVZ/MCN, OJ L 104, 23 . 4 . 1994, p. 34 )
             expectations — Statement of reasons)                      or, in the alternative , the annulment or reduction of the
                             ( 97/C 387/22                             fine imposed by that decision on the applicant — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
                                                                       Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, A.
                 (Language of the case: German)                        Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
                                                                       Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator for the Registrar;
                                                                       has given a judgment on 15 October 1997, in which it:
In Case T-331 /94: IPK-München GmbH, established in
Munich ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Joachim Priess,
of the Brussels Bar, 13 Place des Barricades, Brussels v.
 Commission of the European Communities, ( Agent:                       1 . dismisses the application;
Jürgen Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the
 Commission's decision of 3 August 1994 not to pay the
 balance of financial assistance granted to the applicant in
 connection with a project to create a databank on                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
 ecological tourism in Europe — the Court of First Instance
 ( First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili
 and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator                  (') OJ C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October
 1997, in which it:
 1 . dismisses the application;
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  (') OJ C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                                                of 22 October 1997
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96: Stichting
                                                                         Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK) and Federatie van
                                                                         Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven (FNK) v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1 )
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Competition — Mobile cranes — Article 6 of the
                           of 21 October 1997                            European Convention on Human Rights — Acting within
                                                                         a reasonable time — Certification system — Prohibition
  in Case T-229/94 : Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission of                    on hiring — Recommended rates — Internal rates —
                   the European Communities (')                                                            Fines)
   (Competition — Carriage by rail of maritime containers                                             ( 97/C 387/24 )
   — Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Agreements,
   decisions and concerted practices — Dominant position —
   Abuse — Fine — Criteria of assessment — Principle of
   proportionality — Rights of the defence — Access to the                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                 file — Principle of legal certainty)
                                97/C 387/23
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 : Stichting
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK ) and Federatie
                                                                           van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven ( FNK ), whose
                                                                           registered office is in Culembourg, Netherlands,
   In Case T-229/94 : Deutsche Bahn AG, established in                     represented by Martijn van Empel, of the Amsterdam . Bar,
   Frankfurt ( Germany ), represented by Jochim Sedemund,                  and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 387/ 15
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European
                                                                                of 24 October 1997
Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ), supported in Case
T-18/9 6 by Van Marwijk Kraanverhuur BV, whose
registered office is in Zoetermeer, Netherlands ,                          in Case T-239/94 : Association des Aciéries Européennes
Kraanbedrijf Nijdam BV, whose registered office is                         Indépendantes ( EISA) v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (')
in Groningen, Netherlands, Kranen, Transport &
Montage's Gilde NV, whose registered office is                             (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual
in Geldermalsen, Netherlands, Wassink Transport
                                                                           decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
Arnhem BV, whose registered office is in Arnhem,
                                                                           undertakings — Incompatibility with Treaty provisions —
Netherlands, Koedam Kraanverhuur BV, whose registered                      Retroactivity — Article 4 (b) and (c) and the first and
office is in Vianen, Netherlands, Firma Huurdeman
                                                                                second paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)
Kraanwagenverhuurbedrijf, whose registered office is in
Hoevelaken, Netherlands, Datek NV, whose registered                                                 ( 97IC 387/25 )
office is in Genk, Belgium, Thom Hendrickx, resident in
Turnhout, Belgium, represented by August Braakman , of
the Rotterdam Bar, and Willem Sluiter, of the Hague Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Michel Molitor, 14A Rue des Bains —                                            (Language of the case: French)
application, in Case T-213/95 , for an order under
Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty requiring the
Commission to pay compensation for the harm caused to
the applicants by its unlawful conduct and, in Case T-18/                  In Case T-239/94 : Association des Aciéries Europeennes
96 , for the annulment of Commission Decision 95/551 /EC                   Indépendantes ( EISA ), established in Brussels, represented
of 29 November 1995 relating to a proceeding pursuant                      by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an
to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/34.179, 34.202 , 216 —                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Stichting      Certificatie     Kraanverhuurbedrijf        and    the      Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission
Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven ) ( OJ                     of the European Communities ( Agents : Michel Nolin and
L 312, 23 . 12 . 1995 , p. 79 ) — the Court of First Instance              Ben Smulders ), supported by Council of the European
( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:                     Union ( Agents : Rüdiger Bandilla and Stephan Marquardt ),
K. Lenaerts, President, R Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and                 Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder and
M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administator, for                  Bernd Kloke ), Italian Republic ( Agents : Umberto Leanza
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1997,                    and Pier Giorgio Ferri ), Ilva Laminati Piani SpA ,
in which it :                                                              established in Rome, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo ,
                                                                           of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo Merola , of the Rome
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I , —
 1 . joins Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 for the purposes of                   application for the annulment of Commission Decisions
     the judgment;                                                          94/25 6/ECSC to 94/261 /ECSC of 12 April 1994 ,
                                                                           concerning aid to be granted by various Member States to
                                                                            steel undertakings established in their respective territories
2 . reduces to ECU 100 000 the fine imposed on                              ( OJ L 112, 3 . 5 . 1994, pp . 45 , 52 , 58 , 64, 71 and 77 ) —
                                                                            the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
     the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf by
     Article 5 (2) of Commission Decision 95/551 /EC                        Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, A.
     of 29 November 1995 relating to a proceeding                           Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura
     pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.179,                    Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                            on 24 October 1997, in which it :
     34.202,           216      —        Stichting        Certificatie
     Kraanverhuurbedrijf and                the     Federatie     van
     Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven);
                                                                            1 . declares that it is unnecessary to give a decision on the
                                                                                application for annulment of Commission Decision
 3 . for the rest, dismisses the applications;                                   94/256/ECSC of 12 April 1995 concerning aid to be
                                                                                granted by Germany to the steel company EKO Stahl
                                                                                AG Eisenhüttenstadt;
 4 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including
      those relating to the proceedings for interim measures,
     and the interveners ' costs .                                          2 . dismisses the application in all other respects;
     OJ C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 and C 95 of 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                            3 . orders the applicant to pay five-sixths of the
                                                                                defendant 's costs and all the costs of the intervener,
                                                                                Ilva Laminati Piani SpA ;


title: Case C-351/07: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — CEPAV DUE — Consorzio ENI per l'Alta Velocità, Consorzio COCIV, Consorzio IRICAV DUE v Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Transport and Others

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/30

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — CEPAV DUE — Consorzio ENI per l'Alta Velocità, Consorzio COCIV, Consorzio IRICAV DUE v Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Transport and Others
   (Case C-351/07) (1)

   (2009/C 69/57)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2004 in Joined Cases T-215/01, T-220/01 and T-221/01: Calberson GE v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 February 2004
   in Joined Cases T-215/01, T-220/01 and T-221/01: Calberson GE v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 - Food aid to Russia - Regulation (EC) No 1799/1999 - Supply of beef - Regulation (EC) No 1815/1999 - Supply of skimmed-milk powder - Award of contract for the provision of transport - Contractual relationship - Arbitration clause - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 94/114)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases T-215/01, T-220/01 and T-221/01: Calberson GE, established in Paris (France), represented by T. Gallois, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Berscheid) – applications:

               —

               in Case T-215/01, for an order requiring the Commission to pay to the applicant the sums of EUR 14 290,61 and USD 57 859,56, together with interest at the legal rate, in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered,

               —

               in Case T-220/01, for an order requiring the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of DEM 106 901,96, together with interest at the legal rate, in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered,

               —

               in Case T-221/01, for an order requiring the Commission to pay to the applicant the sums of EUR 23 115,49 and USD 25 761,11, together with interest at the legal rate, in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered,

         all three brought on the basis of Article 238 EC and Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation and, in the alternative, on the basis of Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 February 2004 in which it:

               1.

               In Case T-215/01, orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 7 194,24 and the sum of USD 23 072,89, both together with default interest from 16 May 2001 until full payment. The rate of interest to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations that is applicable during the period in question, increased by two percentage points;

               2.

               Dismisses the application in Case T-215/01 as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to bear in Case T-215/01 a third of its own costs and a third of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the latter to bear two-thirds of its own costs and two-thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant;

               4.

               Dismisses the application in Case T-220/01;

               5.

               Orders the applicant to pay all the costs in Case T-220/01;

               6.

               In Case T-221/01, orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of USD 25 761,11, together with default interest from 3 August 2001 until full payment. The rate of interest to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations that is applicable during the period in question, increased by two percentage points;

               7.

               Orders the applicant to bear in Case T-221/01 a quarter of its own costs and a quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the latter to bear three-quarters of its own costs and three-quarters of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ No C 317, 10.11.2001.


title: Case C-292/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Patron — Greece) — I. Lechouritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos, G. Dimopoulos v Dimosio tis Omospondiakis Dimokratias tis Germanias (Brussels Convention — First sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Meaning — Action for compensation brought in a Contracting State, by the successors of the victims of war massacres, against another Contracting State on account of acts perpetrated by its armed forces)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Patron — Greece) — I. Lechouritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos, G. Dimopoulos v Dimosio tis Omospondiakis Dimokratias tis Germanias
   (Case C-292/05) (1)

   (Brussels Convention - First sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 - Scope - Civil and commercial matters - Meaning - Action for compensation brought in a Contracting State, by the successors of the victims of war massacres, against another Contracting State on account of acts perpetrated by its armed forces)
   (2007/C 82/09)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Patron
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Plaintiffs: I. Lechouritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos, G. Dimopoulos

      Defendant: Dimosio tis Omospondiakis Dimokratias tis Germanias
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Efetio Patron — Interpretation of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention — Scope of the Convention — Action brought by the victims of a war massacre against a Contracting State as being liable for the acts of its armed forces in wartime
   Operative part of the judgment
   On a proper construction of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, ‘civil matters ’within the meaning of that provision does not cover a legal action brought by natural persons in a Contracting State against another Contracting State for compensation in respect of the loss or damage suffered by the successors of the victims of acts perpetrated by armed forces in the course of warfare in the territory of the first State.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case T-160/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (OFTAL CUSI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark OFTAL CUSI — Earlier Community word mark Ophtal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (OFTAL CUSI)
   (Case T-160/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OFTAL CUSI - Earlier Community word mark Ophtal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 269/102
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alcon Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Vidal-Quadras Trias de Bes, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2009 (Case R 1471/2007-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH and Alcon Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dimisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH to bear its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and of Alcon Inc.

      (1)  OJ C 167 of 18.7.2009.