title: Case T-508/10: Action brought on 19 October 2010 — Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat v OHIM — von Eicken (SEBA TRADITION ESTABLISHED 1932 20 FILTER)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/56

         Action brought on 19 October 2010 — Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat v OHIM — von Eicken (SEBA TRADITION ESTABLISHED 1932 20 FILTER)
   (Case T-508/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/110
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat A.S. (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: H. Wilde, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Johann Wilhelm von Eicken GmbH (Lübeck, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 August 2010 in Case R 0559/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Coloured figurative mark, which contains the word elements ‘ESTABLISHED 1932 SEBA TRADITION’, for goods in Class 34.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The Applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Johann Wilhelm von Eicken GmbH

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: German figurative mark, which contains the word elements ‘ESTABLISHED 1770 JOHANN WILHELM VON EICKEN TRADITION’, for goods in Class 34.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application was granted.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) because there is no likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.

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


title: Case C-122/99 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 1999 by D against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D, supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European Union

text:
3.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 188/13
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      — Failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the
                                                                           judgment: the Court of First Instance was unable, without
                                                                           running up against the appellant’s arguments, to reject the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            plea concerning the unique nature of a person’s status,
                                                                           which is a separate plea from that of breach of the principle
                                                                           of equal treatment.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC         — Disregard of the principle of conferred powers: neither the
Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives                Community legislature nor the Community institutions
into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for            may fix, alter or interpret the civil status of officials in their
that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately                 service.
to the Commission. That period expired on 31 July 1997
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue          — Breach of the principle of the unique nature of the personal
into national law.                                                         status of Community nationals: the appellant’s personal
                                                                           status is governed by Swedish law, according to which a
                                                                           registered partner is to be regarded as a married person.
(1) OJ No L 169, 27.6.1997, p. 72.
                                                                      — Breach of the principles of freedom of movement for
                                                                           workers, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
                                                                      — Infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on
                                                                           Human Rights: the protection of a person’s private life
                                                                           entails recognition of the existence and effects of a lawfully
                                                                           acquired civil status. The Court of First Instance was wrong
                                                                           to refer to the judgment in Grant (1), since that case
Appeal brought on 13 April 1999 by D against the                           concerned a relationship which was not formally recog-
judgment delivered on 28 January 1999 by the Second                        nised.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-264/97 between D, supported by
the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
                                                                      (1) Jugdment of the Court of Justice of 17 February 1998 in Case
                             Union                                        C-249/96.
                       (Case C-122/99 P)
                        (1999/C 188/29)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D,                  Action brought on 13 April 1999 by the Commission of
supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the            the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 13 April 1999 by D, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                                       (Case C-123/99)
Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/30)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 April
    European Communities (Second Chamber) of 28 January               1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    1999 in Case T-264/97 D, supported by the Kingdom of              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
    Sweden, v Council of the European Union                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                      Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
— order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of               Kirchberg.
    proceedings.
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
— The Court of First Instance unlawfully altered the subject-              European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1)
    matter of the action by confining itself to an examination             of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste,
    of the question whether it was legally open to the Council,            or by not adopting the necessary measures to comply
    by way of an autonomous interpretation, to treat a                     therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
    registered partnership as equivalent to a marriage.                    obligations under the Treaty and that directive;


title: Case F-10/09: Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

         Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
   (Case F-10/09)
   (2009/C 82/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint of psychological harassment against the head of Human Resources and, secondly, application for an order that the defendant must pay the applicant compensation for the harm suffered.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of the Foundation of 29 February 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint of harassment against the head of Human Resources;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the express decision of the Foundation of 24 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) on 27 June 2008;

               —

               order the Foundation to pay the applicant compensation assessed provisionally at EUR 100 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-23/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/24

         Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)
   (Case T-23/07)
   (2007/C 69/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GbmH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by M. Wolter, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 November 2006 in Case R 0808/2006-4;

               —

               Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 do not preclude publication of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 33 (‘alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), wines, sparkling wines and beverages containing wine’);

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘α ’for goods in Class 33 (Application No 4 634 663).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that it is wrongly held that absolute grounds for refusal exist. Furthermore, the scope and meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 are misconstrued.

      (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-350/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat (Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Deduction for risk capital — Notional interest — Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under double taxation conventions)

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-350/11) (1)

   (Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Deduction for risk capital - Notional interest - Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under double taxation conventions)
   2013/C 245/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Deduction for risk capital (‘notional interest’) — Reduction of the amount deductible, for companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under agreements to prevent double taxation conventions

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, for calculation of a deduction granted to a company subject to full tax liability in a Member State, the net value of the assets of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State is not taken into account when the profits of that permanent establishment are not taxable in the first Member State by virtue of a double taxation convention, whereas the assets attributed to a permanent establishment situated in the territory of the first Member State are taken into account for that purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-87/11 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Fidelio KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Word mark Hallux — Refusal to register — Absolute ground for refusal — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Fidelio KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-87/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Word mark Hallux - Refusal to register - Absolute ground for refusal - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2012/C 235/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Fidelio KG (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-286/08 Fidelio v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 concerning registration of the word sign Hallux as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 (orthopaedic articles and footwear) — Distinctive character of a word sign meaning ‘big toe’ in Latin

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Fidelio KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.05.2011.


title: Case C-144/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2008 — K-Swiss Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Time-limit for instituting proceedings before the Court of First Instance — OHIM decision — Notification by express courier — Calculation of the time limit for bringing an action)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2008 — K-Swiss Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-144/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Time-limit for instituting proceedings before the Court of First Instance - OHIM decision - Notification by express courier - Calculation of the time limit for bringing an action)
   (2008/C 301/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: K-Swiss Inc. (represented by: H.E. Hübner, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-14/06 K-Swiss v OHIM dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Notification by express courier — Date from which the time-limit begins to run
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders K Swiss Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


C 348/22              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                8.12.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-249/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-443/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/39)                                                     (2001/C 348/42)
By order of 2 August 2001 the President of the Court of Justice     By order of 13 September 2001 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
the register of Case C-249/00: Commission of the European           from the register of Case C-443/00: Commission of the
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                    European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-272/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-132/01 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/40)                                                     (2001/C 348/43)
By order of 4 September 2001 the President of the Court of          By order of 8 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-272/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-132/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                           European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-354/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-133/01 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/41)                                                     (2001/C 348/44)
By order of 4 October 2001 the President of the Court of            By order of 8 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-354/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-133/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                            European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.


title: Joined Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 — Directive 2013/62/EU — Directive 2013/64/EU — Legal basis — Article 349 TFEU — Outermost regions of the European Union — Amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 - Directive 2013/62/EU - Directive 2013/64/EU - Legal basis - Article 349 TFEU - Outermost regions of the European Union - Amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union))
   (2016/C 068/05)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, D. Bianchi and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Karlsson, F. Florindo Gijón and J. Czuczai, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F. Fize, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, B. Andrade Correia, M. Duarte and S. Marques, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions in Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-132/14 and C-136/14;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union relating to Cases C-133/14 to C-135/14;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case F-49/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/36

         Action brought on 18 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-49/11)
   2011/C 186/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Rohde-Liebenau, advocate)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the European Commission refusing the applicant's request to take out certain documents from his medical file and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 January 2011 by the AIPN (No R/588jlO);

               —

               order the Commission to make a payment to the applicant as reimbursement for medical costs in the amount of 363,23 EUR;

               —

               order the Commission to provide access to the complete personal file including all medical files to the applicant's named doctor,

                           —

                           or alternatively by sending it to the legal representative of the applicant in this procedure;

                           —

                           or alternatively, by providing access to a copy of the entire file;

                           —

                           or alternatively, by providing electronic access to the entire file;

               —

               order the Commission to declare that no parallel or additional personal or medical files exist;

                           —

                           or alternatively, order the Commission to delete any such additional files and any copies thereof,

                           —

                           or alternatively, order the Commission to insert their full content in the regular personal file (or its medical file);

               —

               order the Commission to pay a compensation for the damage suffered on account of the infringement of his fundamental rights undermining his honour and reputation in an amount deemed appropriate ex aequo et bono by the Tribunal and according to its precedents, but not less than one yearly net income of the applicant at the time of his regular service for the defendant immediately preceding the incident of 2000;

               —

               order the Commission to make a payment to the applicant of a lump sum of 717 863,04 EUR equal to eight times his annual basic salary calculated on the basis of the amounts of salary received during the twelve months before the accident in accordance with Article 73(2b) of the Staff Regulations;

                           —

                           or alternatively a fraction thereof, as deemed appropriate by the Tribunal ex aequo et bono;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-431/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Coordination of social security systems — EEA Agreement — Proposal for an amendment — Council decision — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU — Article 79(2)(b) TFEU)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-431/11) (1)

   (Coordination of social security systems - EEA Agreement - Proposal for an amendment - Council decision - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU)
   2013/C 344/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, acting as Agent, assisted by A. Dashwood QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Veiga, A. De Elera and G. Marhic, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Travers, BL)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Decision 2011/407/EU of 6 June 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2011 L 182, p. 12) — Choice of legal basis (Article 48 TFEU or Article 79 TFEU)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-150/09 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2009 by Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 11 February 2009 in Case T-25/07 Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/27

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2009 by Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 11 February 2009 in Case T-25/07 Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-150/09 P)
   2009/C 153/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola, T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment;

               —

               grant the forms of order already sought at first instance or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants put forward two grounds of appeal in support of their claims.
   The first ground of appeal relates to an error in law in the interpretation and application of Article 253 EC with reference to a failure to state adequate reasons in the decision at issue. The Court of First Instance erred in law in finding, with regard to whether the conditions laid down in Article 87(1) EC are satisfied in the present case, that the following are sufficient for compliance with the obligation to state reasons in Article 253 EC: (i) the simple statement by the Commission that it had established that the measure in question was to be regarded as State aid; (ii) that adequate reasons could be given for the contested measure by referring to the decision to initiate the investigation procedure and an earlier separate decision of the Commission.
   The second ground of appeal relates to distortion of the pleas in the action and an error in law on the part of the Court of First Instance in its assessment of the scope of the Deggendorf case-law for the purpose of the assessment of the present case. In particular, the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance:

               (i)

               distorted the pleas put forward by the appellants at first instance in that it claimed that they had misused the procedure for review of State aid, without, however, in fact clarifying what that misuse consisted of;

               (ii)

               failed to identify the error made by the Commission in its assessment of the scope of the judgment in Deggendorf in so far as it applies to the present case in that it failed to carry out a concrete and specific assessment of the distortion of competition and intra-Community trade resulting from the cumulative effect of the new aid and the earlier aid that had not been recovered;

               (iii)

               failed to identify the error made by the Commission in its assessment of the scope of the judgment in Deggendorf in so far as it applies to the present case in that, as a matter of fact, instead of regarding it as a further criteria in the assessment of whether aid is compatible, it made the non-recovery of earlier aid an additional and decisive condition for determining whether aid is compatible that is not provided for in the Treaty;

               (iv)

               failed to point out that the Commission’s excessive and abusive interpretation of the judgment in Deggendorf in this case has the effect of transforming that case-law into a means of penalising conduct contrary to the Treaty on the part of Member States in a manner that is not envisaged in the Treaty or secondary legislation;

               (v)

               failed to point out that, when it decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure as regards the measure notified by Italy, the Commission indicated that it was of the view that it had available to it all the information necessary to conduct its investigation into whether the measure was compatible. The Commission thereby contradicted the argument underlying the contested decision, namely that, in the course of the notification procedure, the Italian authorities and the recipient company failed to provide it with sufficient information to enable it to carry out an analysis as to whether the measure was compatible;

               (vi)

               committed a serious error in law in stating that Community case-law does not impose a requirement on the Commission to carry out a specific and detailed analysis as to whether the relevant factors enabling all the conditions laid down in Article 87(1) EC to be regarded as being satisfied are present, in order to be able to qualify the measure in question as aid.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2005 in Case C-467/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München in Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff classification of a digital recording machine — Classification under the Combined Nomenclature)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 17 March 2005
   in Case C-467/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München in Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Tariff classification of a digital recording machine - Classification under the Combined Nomenclature)
   (2005/C 132/18)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-467/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht München (Germany), made by decision of 24 June 2003, received at the Court on 6 November 2003, in the proceedings between Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   A machine which, for video-surveillance purposes, records signals from cameras and, after compressing them, reproduces them on screen, performs a specific function other than data processing within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Case C-192/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 6 April 2016 — Peter Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 6 April 2016 — Peter Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-192/16)
   (2016/C 200/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Fisher, Stephen Fisher, Anne Fisher

      Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Interested party: Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and in the light of the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom:

                           1.1.

                           Are Gibraltar and the UK to be treated as if they were part of a single Member State (a) for the purposes of EU law and if so, does that have the consequence that Article 49 TFEU has no application as between the UK and Gibraltar save to the extent that it can apply to an internal measure, or alternatively (b) for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU taken individually, so that that article does not apply save to the extent that it can apply to an internal measure? Alternatively,

                           1.2.

                           Having regard to Article 355(3) TFEU, does Gibraltar have the constitutional status of a separate territory to the UK within the EU such that either (a) the exercise of the right of establishment as between Gibraltar and the UK is to be treated as intra-EU trade for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU, or (b) Article 49 TFEU applies to prohibit restrictions on the exercise of the right of establishment by nationals in the UK in Gibraltar (as a separate entity)? Alternatively,

                           1.3.

                           Is Gibraltar to be treated as a third country or territory with the effect that EU law is only engaged in respect of transactions between the two in circumstances where EU law has effect between a Member State and a non- Member State? Alternatively,

                           1.4.

                           Is the constitutional relationship between Gibraltar and the UK to be treated in some other way for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU?

               2.

               How, if at all, does the answer to the above questions differ when considered in the context of Article 63 TFEU (and consequently as regards the freedom of movement of capital) rather than Article 49 TFEU?


title: Case T-230/13: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — HTC Sweden v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (TWISTER) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of application for declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/22

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — HTC Sweden v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (TWISTER)
   (Case T-230/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of application for declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2014/C 431/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HTC Sweden AB (Söderköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: M. Ring and W. von der Osten-Sacken, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (joined cases R 1873/2011-1 and R 1881/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Vermop Salmon GmbH and HTC Sweden AB.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case F-10/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2009 — Aayhan and Others v European Parliament (No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/43

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2009 — Aayhan and Others v European Parliament
   (Case F-10/08) (1)

   (No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 312/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Laleh Aayhan (Strasbourg, France) and Others (represented by: R. Blindauer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha-Pacha and R. Ignătescu, later by R. Ignătescu and S. Seyr, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the European Parliament's decision of 25 October 2007 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicants on 21 June 2007 for the purpose of having all the fixed-term contracts between them and the Parliament converted into a single contract for an indefinite period.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate in Case F-10/08 Aayhan and Others v Parliament;

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the European Parliament's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.03.2008, p. 70


title: Case T-116/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — EMA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Dicoems and Cocoon contracts — Non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses — Termination of the contracts — Repayment of part of the sums paid — Damages — Counterclaim — Non-contractual liability — Unjust enrichment — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Act part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable — Debit note — Inadmissible)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — EMA v Commission
   (Case T-116/11) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) - Dicoems and Cocoon contracts - Non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses - Termination of the contracts - Repayment of part of the sums paid - Damages - Counterclaim - Non-contractual liability - Unjust enrichment - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Act part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable - Debit note - Inadmissible)
   2014/C 31/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Medical Association (EMA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Franchi and L. Picciano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as Agents and D. Gullo, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, main claim seeking (i) the reimbursement of costs incurred for the performance of contract No 507126 relating to the Cocoon project and contract No 507760 relating to the Dicoems project, concluded on 7 and 19 December 2003 respectively between the Commission and the applicant, (ii) a declaration that the Commission decision to terminate those contracts is unlawful, (iii) annulment of the corresponding debit note and (iv) the payment of compensation for the harm suffered and, second, in the alternative a claim based on the non-contractual liability of the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Upholds the action of the European Medical Association (EMA) in so far as it seeks the reimbursement of direct staffing costs relating to the Cocoon and Dicoems contracts of EUR 17 231,28 and indirect related costs arising from the performance of the contracts.

               2.

               Dismisses the EMA’s action for the remainder.

               3.

               Dismisses the Commission’s counterclaim.

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-116/11 R.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-106/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/25
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         clinical trials allowed by the competent authorities after
                                                                     notification or authorization in accordance with the
                                                                     legislation in force, and not resulting in the formation of
— declare that, in breach of its obligations, the
                                                                     residues constituting a risk to human health . In any event,
     Commission failed to follow the procedure to include            the Commission was not entitled to invoke the moratorium
     somatosalm produced by the applicant on the list of             on BST to oppose the classification of the product in
     substances not subject to maximum residue levels in
                                                                     question in Annex II to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 .
     Annex II to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90,
                                                                     Finally, the applicant argues that the omission in question
— order the Commission to pay the applicant provisional              infringes the principle of sound administration, in that it
     damages of Bfr 512 million, or, at the very least,              goes against the objectives which the Community has set
     provisional damages of Bfr 353 million,                         itself in encouraging research and development in the
                                                                     biotechnology sector , in which Europe is significantly
                                                                     behind .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is a Belgian biotechnology company . The
development and use of smoltine, a derivate of a protein ,           Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Wirtschaftsvereinigung
somatosalm , used naturally by salmon to control their               Stahl against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
osmoregulation capacity, is extremely important for the
future of the applicant, which wishes to extend its activities                                 ( Case T- 106/96 )
in the area of pharmaceutical products for the aquaculture                                       ( 96/C 269/58 )
sector .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant accuses the Commission of preventing the
adoption of an implementing regulation to include
somatosalm in Annex I , II or III to Regulation ( EEC )              An action against the Commission of the European
No 2377/90 , laying down a Community procedure for the               Communities was brought before the Court of First
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary                Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 1996 by
medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, which             Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl , Diisseldorf, represented by
would have allowed the product in question to be marketed .          Joachim Sedemund , Rechtsanwalt, Berlin , with an address
It argues that, under Article 8 ( 3 ) of that Regulation , the       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May ,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
Commission was obliged , in the absence of an opinion from
the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP),
to submit a proposition to the Council without delay as to           The applicant claims that the Court should:
the measures to be taken . It appears that the Commission
submitted a draft implementing regulation to the CVMP,               — annul the defendant's decision ( 96/315/ECSC ) of
including somatosalm in Annex II to Regulation ( EEC )                    7 February 1 996 concerning aid to be granted by Ireland
No 2377/90 . The Committee did not, however, issue an                     to the steel company Irish Steel,
opinion , for lack of a qualified majority , four Member States
having been opposed and six others having abstained on               — in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the
the ground that the Council 's moratorium on bovine                       defendant in so far as it allows Irish Steel to increase its
somatotrophine ( BST) would be ' indirectly ' called into                 production level above the total production level in the
 question if another somatotrophine were to appear on the                 1994/95 financial year,
market .
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay the costs .
The applicant makes the legal argument that abstention by
 the Commission from submitting a proposal for measures to            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 be taken is generally accepted as constituting a culpable
 failure to act, and that the absence of a Commission
 proposal prevents the adoption of an implementing                    The applicant complains that the contested decision
 regulation which could make it possible to market smoltine           infringes Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty and the fifth ' steel
 in the Community .                                                   aids code', in a manner which is not justified by Article 95 of
                                                                      the ECSC Treaty. The Commission is permitting individual
                                                                      Member States to subsidize unprofitable State-owned steel
 It maintains that the effects of that failure to act are             companies on a repeated basis and on so massive a scale that
 particularly damaging, since, as from 1 January 1997 , the           the subsidy payments exceed the equity capital of the
 administration to animals used in food production                    undertaking concerned . This is contrary to the
 of veterinary medicinal products which contain                       Community 's aids policy in respect of privately operated
 pharmacologically active substances and do not appear in             steel undertakings, the subsidizing of which is subject to
 Annex I, II or III will be prohibited , save in the case of          rigorous supervision . The subsidizing of individual
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/26           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
unprofitable steelworks is prohibited . According to the             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by Pantochim SA against
Treaty ( Article 56 ( 2 )) and the code, approval could have                the Commission of the European Communities
been given only in respect of aid relating to closures .                                     ( Case T-107/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/59 )
The applicant advances, in particular, the following
pleas :
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— breach of the principle that the administration must act
    in accordance with the law, since the contested decision
    is not in conformity with the ECSC Treaty and the fifth          An action against the Commission of the European
    steel aids code, and since a derogation from the aids code       Communities was brought before the Court of First
    could only have been provided for by a general rule in the       Instance of the European Communities on 12 July 1996 by
    abstract,                                                        Pantochim SA, whose registered office is in Feluy ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar,
— breach of the principle of equality, and in particular of          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
    the principle that the administration is bound by its own        of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
    acts ,
— the absence of any compelling need for approval of aid in          The applicant claims that the Court should :
    order to attain the objectives of the Treaty, since the aid
    payments did not serve to achieve any of the objectives of       — declare that the Commission has infringed the EC Treaty
    Articles 2 and 3 but were designed to offset losses and               by failing to decide, pursuant to the first subparagraph
    liabilities from previous years ,                                     of Article 93 ( 2 ) thereof, that France must alter its
                                                                          procedures governing the grant of aid for biofuel so that
— breach of the inherent scheme of Article 3 of the ECSC                  they comply with the rules in the EC Treaty,
    Treaty and infringement of Article 56 ( 2 ) of that
    Treaty,
                                                                     — find the Community liable for the harm resulting from
                                                                          the    Commission 's    failure to   act  and   order     the
— unlawful legalization of unnotified aids dating from
    1993 ,
                                                                          Commission to make good that harm, provisionally
                                                                          assessed at FF 50 508 729 ,
— breach of the principle of the restrictive interpretation of
    exemption provisions , in particular Article 95 of the           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    ECSC Treaty,
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    expectations, since the reliance placed by privately
    operated steel undertakings on meticulous adherence to           The applicant, a company established under Belgian law and
    the aids code as a guideline for action by the Commission        subsidiary of Societa Italiana Serie Acetica Sintetica SpA
    has been rendered worthless ,                                    (' Sisas'), has a factory in Feluy where it produces a methyl
                                                                     ester from vegetable oils, called Sisoil E. It challenges the
— breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, since      alleged failure of the Commission to take action under the
    the competitors of Irish Steel were not notified in              procedure laid down by Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
    advance and invited to comment,                                  against the discriminatory grant by the French authorities of
                                                                     tax relief for biodiesel other than ethyl alcohol originating in
— infringement of the procedural rules governing the                 another Member State .
    adoption of the contested decision, in particular
    Article 13 of the ECSC Treaty, concerning the                    The applicant points out in that regard that Sisas contacted
    decision-making procedure of the Commission ,                    both the main French oil companies with a view to entering
    Articles 1 and 27 of the Commission 's rules of procedure        into contracts for the direct supply of Sisoil E and three
    of 9 January 1963 concerning the principle of                    French vegetable oil producers with a view to entering into
    collegiality and the delegation of powers , and Articles 1 1     contracts for ester processing on their behalf at the Feluy
    and 12 of the rules of procedure concerning written              factory . The problem has arisen because the French
    procedure and the procedure for holding meetings,                authorities' approval of the factory in Feluy as a ' pilot unit'
                                                                     is required before such contracts can be entered into .
— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of                 Despite repeated efforts, Sisas has never obtained French
    reasons pursuant to Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty,               Government approval for the applicant to supply in France
                                                                     biodiesel benefiting from the tax relief.
— breach of the principle of proportionality , as a result of
    the distortion of competition arising from the grant of
    approval of a massive expansion of production .                  Since the procedure initiated by the Commission under
                                                                     Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty was not pursued , the
                                                                     applicant has brought this action for declaration of failure
                                                                     to act. In that regard, the applicant considers that the legal


title: Case C-384/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 44 de Barcelona — Spain) — Alta Realitat S.L. v Erlock Film ApS, Ulrich Thomsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Regulation (CE) No 1393/2007 — Article 8 — Failure to provide a translation of the document — Refusal to accept a document — Linguistic knowledge of the addressee of the document — Review by the judge hearing the matter in the Member State of origin)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/14

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 44 de Barcelona — Spain) — Alta Realitat S.L. v Erlock Film ApS, Ulrich Thomsen
   (Case C-384/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (CE) No 1393/2007 - Article 8 - Failure to provide a translation of the document - Refusal to accept a document - Linguistic knowledge of the addressee of the document - Review by the judge hearing the matter in the Member State of origin))
   (2016/C 243/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 44 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alta Realitat S.L.

      Defendants: Erlock Film ApS, Ulrich Thomsen

      Operative part of the order

   Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that, when serving a document on its addressee residing in the territory of another Member State, in a situation where the document has not been drafted in or accompanied by a translation in either a language which the person concerned understands, or the official language of the Member State addressed, or, if there are a number of official languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official languages of the place where service is to be effected:

               —

               the court seised in the transmitting Member State must ensure that the addressee has been properly informed, by means of the standard form in Annex II to that regulation, of his right to refuse to accept that document;

               —

               where that procedural requirement has not been complied with, it falls to that court to return the proceedings to a lawful footing in accordance with the provisions of that regulation;

               —

               it is not for the court seised to prevent the addressee from exercising his right to refuse to accept that document;

               —

               it is only after the addressee has effectively exercised his right to refuse to accept the document that the court seised may verify whether that refusal was well founded; for that purpose, that court must take into account all the relevant information on the court file in order to determine whether or not the party concerned understands the language in which the document was drafted; and

               —

               where that court finds that the refusal by the addressee of the document was not justified, it may in principle apply the consequences under its national law in such a case, provided that the effectiveness of Regulation No 1393/2007 is preserved.

      (1)  OJ C 338, 3.11.2014.


title: Case T-287/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Peñalba Lopez (Torre Albéniz) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark TG Torre Galatea — Earlier Community word mark TORRES 10 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Peñalba Lopez (Torre Albéniz)
   (Case T-287/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark TG Torre Galatea - Earlier Community word mark TORRES 10 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)
   (2009/C 44/75)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and J. García Murillo, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Bodegas Peñalba Lopez, SL (Aranda de Duero, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, T. Villate Consonni and M. Yañez Manglano, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R-597/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Bodegas Peñalba Lopez, SL.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-183/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2017 by International Management Group against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2017 in Case T-29/15: International Management Group v European Commission

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/7

         Appeal brought on 11 April 2017 by International Management Group against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2017 in Case T-29/15: International Management Group v European Commission
   (Case C-183/17 P)
   (2017/C 221/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: International Management Group (represented by: L. Levi, Avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul the amended annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 7.11.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union (1) adopted on 16 December 2014; and

                           —

                           order the European Commission to pay for the costs.

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:

               1)

               Violation of the duty to state reasons — Violation of the duty to state reasons of the judge — Distortion of the file

               2)

               Violation of Financial Regulation of 2002 (2) and of Financial Regulation of 2012 (3) — Violation of the Commission Regulation (4) and of the Commission Delegated Regulation (5) — Violation of the duty of the judge state reasons — Distortion of the file

               3)

               Infringement of the principle of sound financial management — Infringement of the duty to state reasons — Infringement of the duty of the judge to state reasons — Infringement of the Financial Regulation of 2012 (articles 61(1) and 60(2))

               4)

               Infringement of the principle of good administration — Infringement of the right to be heard

         The appellant also challenges the decision to reject the appellant's request for production of the OLAF report.

      (1)  C(2013) 7682 final.

      (2)  Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012, L 298, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 357, p. 1).

      (5)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012, L 362, p. 1).


title: Case T-621/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/14

         Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
   (Case T-621/13)
   2014/C 31/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL (Băile, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 388/2013-4;

               —

               order OHIM and Alva Management GmbH to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL

      Community trade mark concerned: the black and white figurative mark containing the word element ‘Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti’ (Community trade mark application No 10 109 981)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 6 645 071, German registration No 1 161 287, and international registrations Nos 588 232 and 657 169 of the word mark ‘PERLAMAR’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and the trade mark cited in opposition.


title: Case T-891/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/32

         Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission
   (Case T-891/16)
   (2017/C 063/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant unlawfully failed to act pursuant to Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in that it failed to define its position on the applicants’ complaint of 5 June 2014, concerning State aid granted for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of potential overcompensation involved in the non-commercial railway fees to be paid by the Danish national railway operator DSB to the third party in question for the use of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of the gratuitous use of State property provided to the third party concerned for the construction of the Fixed Link (Construction Phase).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State guarantees to the third party concerned since this was not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of capital injections to the third party concerned in excess of amounts authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned while the Planning Decision only authorised the grant of State guarantees (Planning Phase).

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of State loans to the third parties concerned in excess of the budget authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to act within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU in relation to the grant of State aid in the form of tax advantages to the third parties concerned which were not authorised in the Planning Decision (Planning Phase).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 April 1997 in Case T-47/95: Terres Rouges Consultant SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Framework Agreement on Bananas concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations - Regulation (EC) No 3224/94 - Community transitional measures for the implementation of the Framework Agreement - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 181 /10         I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14 . 6 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,            4 . When must this legal test be applied to a measure
by order of that court of 13 March 1997, in the case of                     adopted by a Member State ? In particular at which of
Regina against Secretary of State for Employment, ex                        the following points in time, or at what other point in
         parte: Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez                        time, must it be applied to the measure :
                        ( Case C-167/97)                                    ( a ) when the measure is adopted;
                          ( 97/C 181/18 )                                   ( b ) when the measure is brought into force;
                                                                            (c ) when the employee is dismissed ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               5 . What are the legal conditions for establishing the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                      objective justification, for the purposes of indirect
of 13 March 1997, which was received at the Court                           discrimination under Article              119, of a measure
Registry on 2 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                     adopted by a Member State in pursuance of its social
case of Regina against Secretary of State for Employment,                   policy ? In particular, what material need the Member
ex parte : Nicole Seymour-Smith and Laura Perez, on the                     State adduce in support of its grounds for
following questions :                                                       justification ?
1 . Does an award of compensation for breach of the                  (') Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
     right not to be unfairly dismissed under national                     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
     legislation such as the Employment Protection                         and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     ( Consolidation ) Act 1978 constitute 'pay' within the                training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39,
     meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?                             14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes\ do the conditions
     determining whether a worker has the right not to be
     unfairly dismissed fall within the scope of Article 119                       Removal from the register of C-3 17/96 (')
     or that of Directive 76/207/EEC (')?                                                           ( 97/C 181 / 19 )
3 . What is the legal test for establishing whether a                By order of 29 January 1997 the President of the Court of
     measure adopted by a Member State has such a degree             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     of disparate effect as between men an women as to               removal from the register of Case C-3 17/96 : Commission
     amount to indirect discrimination for the purposes of           of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
     Article 119 of the EC Treaty unless shown to be based
     upon objectively justified factors other than sex ?             ( 1 ) OJ No C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            represented by Michel Aurillac, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of 9 April 1997                             Charles Duro, 4 Boulevard Royal, against the Commission
in Case T-47/95 : Terres Rouges Consultant SA and Others             of the European Communities ( Agents : Theofanis
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )               Christoforou, Yves Renouf and Gerard Berscheid ),
                                                                     supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                      Arthur Brautigam and Jiirgen Huber ), the Kingdom of
Import arrangements — Framework Agreement on                         Spain ( Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ) and the French
Bananas concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of                    Republic ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Frederic Pascal )
multilateral trade negotiations — Regulation (EC)                    — application for annulment of Commission Regulation
No 3224/94 — Community transitional measures for the                 ( EC ) No 3224/94 of 21 December 1994 laying down
implementation of the Framework Agreement — Action                   transitional measures for the implementation of the
                for annulment — Inadmissibility)                     Framework Agreement on Bananas concluded as part of
                                                                     the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations ( OJ
                          ( 97/C 181/20 )                            No L 337, 1994, p. 72 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:
                                                                     K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and
                 (Language of the case: French)                      M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 1997, in which
                                                                     it :
In Case T-47/95 : Terres Rouges Consultant SA, established
in Paris, Cobana Import Sari, established in Rungis
( France ), SIPEF NV, established in Antwerp ( Belgium ),            1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181/11
2 . orders the applicants to bear jointly and severally the               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     costs incurred by the defendant;
                                                                                of 16 April 1997
                                                                       in Case T-541/93 : James Connaughton and Others v.
                                                                                Council of the European Union f )
3.   orders the interveners to bear their own costs .
                                                                       (Action for annulment — Milk — Additional levy —
                                                                       Reference quantity — Producers who entered into non-
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                       marketing or conversion undertakings — Compensation
                                                                       — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Legal effects —
                                                                                Admissibility)
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /22 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 15 April 1997
in Case T-390/94: Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius                  In Case T-541/93 : James Connaughton, Thomas
Thamann v. Commission of the European Communities ( ! )                Fitzsimons and Patrick Griffin, residing respectively at
(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Control of               Kilbeggan, Askeaton and Clonmel ( Ireland ), represented
  classical swine fever in the Federal Republic of Germany)            by James O'Reilly SC, of the Irish Bar, and Philippa
                                                                       Watson, Barrister, of the Irish Bar, instructed by Oliver
                           ( 97/C 181 /21 )                            Ryan-Purcell , Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-
                                                                       Pierre Brasseur, against Council of the European Union,
                                                                        ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Michael Bishop ),
                (Language of the case: German)                         supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        ( Agents: Gerard Rozet and Xavier Lewis ) and the United
                                                                       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents :
                                                                        initially John D. Colahan, subsequently S. T. Braviner) —
In Case T-390/94: Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius                   application , pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, for
Thamann, of Neuenkirchen ( Germany ), represented by                    annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
Wilhelm Clages, Gerd Rentzmann and Rudolf Brenken,                      22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to
Rechtsanwälte, Quakenbrück, with an address for service                 certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, Pierre                 prevented from carrying on their trade . ( OJ No L 196 ,
Feltgen and Andre Harpes, 14a , rue des Bains, against                  1993 , p. 6 ), in particular Articles 8 and 14 thereof — the
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
 Claudia Schmidt and Georg M. Berrisch ) — application                  Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. W.
for an award of damages under Article 178 and the                       Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty against                Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
the Commission for damage allegedly suffered by the                     on 16 April 1997, in which it:
 applicants as a result of a series of decisions adopted by
the Commission to control classical swine fever in the
 Federal Republic of Germany — the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ),                 1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
 composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi
 and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: A. Mair, Administrator,
 has given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                        2 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
                                                                             pay those incurred by the Council;
 1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                         3 . orders the United Kingdom and the Commission to
                                                                             bear their own costs .
 2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs.
 (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      O OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .


title: Case C-459/09 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2009 by Dominio de la Vega, S. L against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-458/07 Dominio de la Vega S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/35

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2009 by Dominio de la Vega, S. L against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-458/07 Dominio de la Vega S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.
   (Case C-459/09 P)
   2010/C 24/64
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Dominio de la Vega, S. L. (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver y A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside entirely the judgment under appeal in Case T-458/07 delivered on 16 September 2009, and consequently,

               —

               Give final judgment in the case, declare that the signs at issue are not similar and therefore that there is no likelihood of confusion, and allow registration of the Community trade mark No 2 789 576‘Dominio de la Vega’ in Class 33, since it is not prohibited by Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, now Regulation No 201/2009.

               —

               Alternatively, if necessary, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for judgment in accordance with the binding criteria established by the Court of Justice.

               —

               Order OHIM and the intervening party to pay the costs, both of these proceedings and of the earlier proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and also of Article 8(2)(i) and (ii) of formerly Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) now Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2). The earlier mark which is the ground of opposition in this case is the Community trade mark. An error of law is committed in the judgment under appeal, the fact that the mark is a Community mark is not taken into account, and the relevant public for the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue is considered to be a public which is incorrect and contrary to that prescribed in Regulation on the Community trade mark applicable to the case.

               2.

               Error of Law in assessment and decision to hold documents produced as inadmissible, resulting in an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion of the Spanish consumer. The Court of First Instance distorted the evidence in support of the coexistence of the marks in Spain, that error of law leading to an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, now Regulation No 207/2009

      (1)  Council Regulation of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 78, p. 1.