title: Action brought on 29 July 1996 by X against the European Parliament (Case T-119/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 269/29
Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 1996 by                question was decided on following the procedure laid down
Biscuiterie-Confiserie LOR whose registered office is at               in Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 , in
Perpignan ( France ) and Confiserie du TECH whose                      which other parties do not have the opportunity to make
registered office is at Cabestany ( France ), represented by           their views known . Consequently, the decision was not
Nicolas Boespflug, of the Paris Bar .                                  taken with full knowledge of the facts, since the applicants
                                                                       were not able to put forward their arguments .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of
      12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical
      indications and designations of origin under the
      procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation          Action brought on 29 July 1996 by X against the European
                                                                                Parliament
      ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 in so far as it registered the names
      'Turron de Jijona ' and 'Turron de Alicante ' as protected                               ( Case T-l 19/96 )
      geographical indications,                                                                  ( 96/C 269/63 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 29 July 1996 by X, represented by
The applicant companies, which have for many years                     Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel of
manufactured 'tourons ' in France under the names ' touron             the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Jijona' and ' touron Alicante ', claim that the contested              at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener.
measure was adopted in breach of Article 3 of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 of 14 July 1992 on the                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which
provides that names that have become generic may not be                — annul the decision of the appointing authority to treat
registered ; a generic name is the name of an agricultural                  the applicant's absences between March and October
product or a foodstuff which , although it relates to the place             1995 as unauthorized, to deduct them from his days of
or the region where this product was originaly produced or                  annual leave and , when his leave was used up, to deduct
marketed , has become the common name of an agricultural                    an amount equivalent to the remuneration to which he is
                                                                            entitled,
product or a foodstuff.
                                                                       — annul the decision of 18 April 1996 of the
 In their view, the names 'Jijona ' and ' Alicante' used to                 Secretary-General of the European Parliament expressly
describe 'tourons ' are unquestionably generic .                            rejecting his complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
The applicants state that in the Roussillon the manufacture
 of 'tourons ' is traditional , in particular a hard and a soft
 'touron' called 'Alicante' and 'Jijona ' respectively , after the      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 names of the towns where they originated ; consequently, in
 the minds of French consumers those names, when they are
 used to describe 'tourons', are not connected to the Spanish           The applicant, an official in grade C 3 of the European
 towns of those names . The applicants point out that even in           Parliament who, according to the contested decision, has
 Spain the names 'Jijona ' and ' Alicante' are used as synonyms         been absent from work without permission, challenges that
 for ' soft' and ' hard ' to designate ' types' and 'varieties' of      finding of the appointing authority, its deduction of the
 'turron ', whatever the origin of the 'turron ' in question ; they     alleged absences from his days of leave and , when they were
 also note that ' turrones ' have been marketed under the               used up, its deduction of an amount equivalent to the
                                                                        remuneration to which he is entitled .
 names 'Jijona ' and 'Alicante' by many major Spanish
 ' turron ' manufacturers established in towns other than
 Jijona and Alicante . The applicants add that in legal                 He claims, inter alia, that the allegedly unauthorized
 proceedings in France the names in question have been                  absences which are the subject-matter of the contested
 found to be generic .                                                  decision , are justified on medical grounds and that in any
                                                                        event his immediate superiors were informed of the reasons
                                                                        for his absence . Moreover, he asserts that the medical
 Furthermore , the applicants consider that there are                   certificate drawn up by his doctor provides justification for
 particular grounds for annulment of the contested                      most of the absences at issue . The European Parliament has
 Regulation on the point in dispute in that the registration in         none the less treated those absences as unauthorized ,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/30         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 9 . 96
without making the slightest attempt to establish whether         required in order to obtain permission to spend his
the day's or half-day's absences to which it objects were         convalescent leave abroad .
warranted by the applicant's state of health .
                                                                  He considers that the appointing authority was in any event
He notes that as regards the monitoring of absence in             required to seek the opinion of the Invalidity Committee .
August and September 1 995 , his doctor considered, and was
not contradicted by the inspecting doctor, that the applicant     All that, in his view, constitutes infringement of Articles 25 ,
was not fit to complete the administrative formalities            59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations .


title: Case T-279/04: Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/33

         Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-279/04)
   (2004/C 262/64)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2004 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, established in Paris, represented by Olivier Fréget and Wilko van Weert, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA agreement (Case No COMP7M:2978-LAGARDERE/NATEXIS/VUP) (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission decided not to oppose the acquisition by Lagardère of control of certain assets of Vivendi Universal Publishing, controlled by Investima, itself controlled by Natexis Banques Populaires, notified to the Commission under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (2) on 14 April 2003, and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA agreement, provided the commitments offered were met.
   The applicant, who claims to be directly and individually concerned by the contested decision, having actively participated in the administrative procedure preceding its adoption, seeks the annulment of the decision in question, arguing, first, that the Commission has infringed Regulation No 4064/89. The applicant submits that the bank, Natexis, cannot be covered by the exception laid down in Article 3(5)(a) of that regulation, since it acquired Vivendi Universal Publishing only after giving a commitment to resell that undertaking to Lagardère. Furthermore, the Commission wrongly classified the project in question as the acquisition of total control, when in actual fact it constituted the acquisition of joint control by Lagardère and Natexis, which should have notified it to the Commission jointly under Article 4(2) of Regulation 4064/89.
   The applicant maintains also that the Commission infringed Article 6(1) and Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89 by accepting notification of the operation in question more than four months after it took place and by granting Lagardère successive extensions of time which had the effect of postponing the adoption of the decision by nine months. The Commission also committed a manifest error in its assessment of Lagardère's real power.
   The applicant further claims that the Commission infringed Article 2 of Regulation No 4064/89 and committed a manifest error of assessment on the ground that the contested decision strengthened Lagardère's dominant position. It also submits that the Commission's acceptance of a divestiture commitment, neither the principle nor the conditions for implementation of which are such as to enable effective competition to be restored, constitutes an infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 4064/89. Finally, the applicant alleges failure to give reasons for the contested decision as regards the effect of that commitment on the structure of the market in its current state.

      (1)  OJ L 125 of 28.4.2004, p. 54.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings OJ L 257/90 p. 13.


title: Case F-105/14: Action brought on 9th October 2014 — ZZ v ENISA

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/53

         Action brought on 9th October 2014 — ZZ v ENISA
   (Case F-105/14)
   (2015/C 007/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to retain the applicant’s candidacy for the post of ‘legal officer’ (vacancy notice ENISA-TA-AD-2013-05).

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs.


title: Case T-452/04: Action brought on 8 November 2004 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/24

         Action brought on 8 November 2004 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-452/04)
   (2005/C 45/55)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 November 2004 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, established in Paris, represented by Wilko van Weert and Olivier Fréget, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision on the ground that it repeated the failure to comply with the conditions and undertakings imposed on Lagardère in the decision of 7 January 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant contests the Commission Decision of 30 July 2004 concerning the approval of Wendel Investissement as the acquirer of the assets sold by Lagardère, in accordance with the Commission Decision of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (1) (‘the Compatibility Decision’). The concentration was authorised subject to the sale by Lagardère of certain assets, namely Editis. The applicant submitted an offer to purchase Editis but was unsuccessful.
   In support of its action the applicant claims, in the first place, that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of the report of a trustee who was not appointed in accordance with the conditions laid down by paragraph 15 of Annex II to the Compatibility Decision. The applicant argues that the trustee in question was not independent, particularly of Editis, contrary to the duty incumbent on Lagardère in consequence of the Compatibility Decision.
   Second, the applicant claims that the Commission failed in its duty to supervise the sale of Editis, allowing a selection procedure for purchasers to be put in place which was discriminatory and anti-competitive. According to the applicant, the Commission should have required the organisation of a call for prospective purchasers which was transparent, objective and non-discriminatory. Furthermore, the Commission should not have approved the terms of the confidentiality agreement between Lagardère and the potential purchasers, which included the applicant, preventing them from bringing an action. The Commission should have taken steps to rectify the procedure when the applicant drew its attention to the failures to comply with the competition rules in the EC Treaty. Finally, the Commission denied the applicant the minimum protection to which it considered it was entitled as an interested third party.
   Third, the applicant relies on a manifest error by the Commission in its assessment of whether the conditions laid down in respect of the purchaser by the Compatibility Decision were complied with. The applicant argues that the purchaser is not an operator capable of restoring a situation of effective competition.
   Finally, the applicant relies on a breach of the duty to state reasons.

      (1)  Case COMP/M.2978 – Lagardère/Natexis/VUP (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54)


title: Case C-310/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  9 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/95/EC — General product safety — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/27

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-310/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/95/EC - General product safety - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 131/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ L 11, p. 4)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243 of 01.10.2005.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 February 1997 in Case T-49/96: H. v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Action for damages - Objection of inadmissibility)

text:
No C 131 / 16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 4 . 97
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.
                        of 5 February 1997                              Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
                                                                        an order on 6 February 1997, in which it:
in Case T-49/96: H. v. Commission of the European
                           Communities (')
(Officials — Action for damages — Objection of                          1 . dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
                           inadmissibility)
                            ( 97/C 131 /39 )                            2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)                          (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
In Case T-49/96 : H, a former official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing at Brussels,
represented initially by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —                                               of 20 February 1997
application for compensation for the material and non-                  in Case T-139/96: MD Foods Amba and Others v.
material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant — the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of B.                         Commission of the European Communities ( l )
Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. Briët and A. Potocki,                                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 February
 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :                                                 ( 97/C 131 /41 )
 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                          (Language of the case: Danish)
 2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                   In Case T-139/96 : MD Foods Amba, established in Viby
                                                                        ( Denmark ), and Dansk Mejeriers Fællesorganisation,
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                       established in Århus ( Denmark ), represented by G. Lett,
                                                                        Advokat, and N. Scandamis, of the Athens Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R.
                                                                        Assa, 1 Rue J. P. Brasseur, against Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities ( Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues
                                                                        and H. Støvlbæk ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                        Commission Regulation (EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 June
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1996 on the registration of geographical indications and
                         of 6 February 1997                             designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
                                                                        Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081/92 ( OJ
 in Case T-64/96: Filippo de Jorio v. Council of the                    No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 19 96, p. 1 ) in so far as concerns the
                         European Union ( 1 )                            registration of feta as a protected designation of origin —
                                                                        the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
 (Allowances of members of the Economic and Social                       R. García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
 Committee — Action for annulment — Action for
                                                                        Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 February
    declaration of failure to act — Manifest inadmissibility)            1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                             ( 97/C 131 /40
                                                                         1 . Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-139/96 MD Foods
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                             Amba and Dansk Mejeriers Fællesorganisation v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities, in order
                                                                             to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the
 In Case T-64/96 : Filippo de Jorio, member of the                           application for annulment.
 Economic and Social Committee of the European
 Communities, represented by Lucio Filippo Longo, of the
 Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  2.   The costs are reserved.
 the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
 Hardt, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:
 Maria Cristina Giorgi and Therese Blanchet) —                           (') OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
 applications under Articles 173 and 175 of the EC Treaty
 relating to allowances of members of the Economic and
  Social Committee — the Court of First Instance (Third


title: Case T-147/06: Action brought on  19 May 2006  — En Route International Limited v OHIM

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/35

         Action brought on 19 May 2006 — En Route International Limited v OHIM
   (Case T-147/06)
   (2006/C 178/64)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: En Route International Limited (Berkshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. W. Göpfert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 7 March 2006 in Case R 352/2005-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark 'FRESHHH' for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 (Application No 3 198 165).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: The mark applied for is registrable; no grounds for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) or Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) stand in the way of its registration.

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


title: Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Cipeke, Comércio e Indústria de Papel, Ld.a against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-84/96)

text:
 10 . 8 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 233/ 17
 Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Cipeke, Comércio e                  The applicant claims that the statement of reasons for the
 Industria de Papel , Ld .a against the Commission of the             decision at issue is contradictory, equivocal , inconsistent,
                    European Communities                               incomplete and inadequate .
                        ( Case T-84/96 )
                                                                      Moreover, the abovementioned statement of reasons is
                          ( 96/C 233 /29 )                            neither clear, explicit or relevant, which is tantamount to a
                                                                      failure to state reasons .
              (Language of tbe case: Portuguese)
                                                                      Thus, the contested act infringed essential procedural
                                                                      requirements ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ), which entails
                                                                      its annulment .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
 Cipeke, Comércio e Industria de Papel , Ld .'1 , whose
 registered office is at 22-5"Esq Avenida Sidonia Pais,
 Lisbon, represented by Miguel Ferrâo Castelo Branco, of the
 Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Francis Alan Clarke
the Chambers of François Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe,                       against the European Centre for the Development of
 Luxembourg L-2763 .                                                                  Vocational Training ( Cedefop )
                                                                                ( Case T-85/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                    ( 96/C 233 /30 )
annul Commission Decision C(95 ) 543 of 12 December                                  (Language of tbe case: German)
 1995 , with all the legal consequences such annulment
entails .                                                             An action against the European Centre for the Development
                                                                      of Vocational Training was brought before the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of the European Communities on 31 May
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1996 by Francis Alan Clarke, of Eischen ( Luxembourg ),
                                                                     represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and
The Departamento para Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu                 Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of
( DAFSE, the Portuguese ESF agency ) applied to the                   Francis Alan Clarke , 30 Rue de la Gare , Eischen .
Commission of the European Communities for assistance
from the European Social Fund ( ESF ) ( File ESF 871012P 1 ).        The applicant claims that the Court should :
The application for assistance was made on behalf of Partex
and not the other 10 undertakings , which include the                — annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 5 April
applicant. The applicant, inasmuch as it was a beneficiary                1996 , in the form of the decision of 22 April 1996 , and
and in the context of the assistance granted , carried out two            the decision of 21 May 1996 ,
paid vocational training courses in graphic arts . The
relevant curricula and budgets were approved by the ESF .            — order Cedefop to pay the costs .
Once the courses were completed , the applicant submitted
within the prescribed period its ' Quantitative and                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Qualitative Evaluation Report' and awaited payment of the
balance it believed to be due to it . On examination of the
                                                                     The applicant states that he has been employed since 1 977 in
final payment claim, the Commission informed the                     the service of Cedefop , the seat of which was moved on
Portuguese State that it was reducing the ESF assistance              1 September 1995 from Berlin to Thessaloniki . In July 1995
relating to file ESF 871012P 1 . The applicant, in its capacity      the Statistical Office of the European Communities
as a beneficiary of ESF assistance in the context of file ESF        ( Eurostat ) agreed with the defendant that the applicant was
871012P 1 , brought an action for annulment ( C-189/90 )             to be seconded to Eurostat in Luxembourg, pending his
and , on 4 June 1992 , the Court of Justice annulled the             transfer to that establishment at the earliest possible date .
Commission's decision .
                                                                     Since, at the time of Cedefop's relocation on 1 September
                                                                     1995 , the criteria for application of interinstitutional
Subsequently, also following examination of the final                mobility had not yet been established , the applicant was
payment claim for the balance, the Commission adopted                seconded to Eurostat in Luxembourg until further notice by
Decision C(95 ) 543 of 12 December 1995 , according to               decision of the Director of 31 July 1995 . It was not until
which the applicant was to repay to the ESF Esc 4 267 218 .          February 1996 that the Commission made it possible for
The Commission adopted the abovementioned decision ,                 Cedefop employees to avail themselves of the mobility
now under challenge , on the grounds , set forth in letter           arrangements . The applicant's request for an extension of
No 6045 of 24 March 1994, addressed to the Portuguese                his secondment to Eurostat until his intervening transfer to
State, that it considered that part of the ESF assistance was        that establishment was implicitly refused by the contested
not used according to the conditions laid down in the                decision of the Director of Cedefop of 5 April 19 96 . That
approval decision and that it did not consider eligible              decision, which was notified to the applicant on 1 1 April
expenditure in an amount of Esc 1 9 725 390 incurred by the          1996 , required him to take up his duties in Thessaloniki on
applicants in respect of the training courses .                      2 May 1 996 .


title: Case C-142/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against V. W. Lahousse, Lavichy BVBA (Directives 92/61/EEC and 2002/24/EC — Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles — Vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions — National legislation prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against V. W. Lahousse, Lavichy BVBA
   (Case C-142/09) (1)

   (Directives 92/61/EEC and 2002/24/EC - Type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles - Vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions - National legislation prohibiting the manufacture, marketing and use of equipment designed to increase the engine power and/or speed of mopeds)
   2011/C 13/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde

      Parties in the main proceedings

   V. W. Lahousse, Lavichy BVBA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Dendermonde (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 1(1), 12 and 15(2) of Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Council Directive 92/61/EEC (OJ 2002 L 124, p. 1) — Exception in respect of vehicles intended for use in competition, on roads or in off-road conditions — National legislation disregarding that exception

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, and Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles and repealing Directive 92/61 are to be construed as meaning that, where a vehicle or a component or separate technical unit thereof does not qualify for the type-approval procedure established by those directives, on the ground that it does not come within their scope, the provisions of those directives do not prevent a Member State from introducing, in its domestic law and in relation to such vehicle, component or separate technical unit, a similar mechanism for recognising the checks carried out by other Member States. In any event, such legislation must comply with EU law, in particular Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case T-563/08: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2010 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS — Earlier Community and national figurative marks CM Capital Markets — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2010 — CM Capital Markets v OHIM — Carbon Capital Markets (CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS)
   (Case T-563/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CARBON CAPITAL MARKETS - Earlier Community and national figurative marks CM Capital Markets - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 209/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CM Capital Markets Holding, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Carbon Capital Markets Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Hardcastle, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2008 (Case R 15/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between CM Capital Markets Holding, SA and Carbon Capital Markets Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CM Capital Markets Holding, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-137/06: Order of the President of the Court of 23 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-137/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/79)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 131, 03.06.2006.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/64

         Removal from the Register of Case T-145/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/135)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-145/97, J.P.W. Vrencken v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2001 in Case T-18/99 Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries — Calculation of annual quantity allocated — Action for damages — Admissibility — Possibility of relying on WTO rules — Misuse of powers — General principles of Community law)

text:
C 150/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.5.2001
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                 and certain general principles of Community law — the Court
K.-D. Borchardt and H. van Vliet) — application for compen-             of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
sation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a            President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Pala-
result of the introduction of the export licence system by              cio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on                 judgment on 20 March 2001, in which it:
additional rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota arrangements for                  1.    Dismisses the action;
imports of bananas into the Community and amending
Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 13) — the
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-       2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pas-               Commission.
tor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it:
                                                                        (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.99.
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.99.
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 February 2001
                                                                        in Case T-26/99: Trabisco SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Rejection
                                                                                of a complaint — Action for annulment)
                        of 20 March 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 150/42)
in Case T-18/99 Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel
  GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
— Calculation of annual quantity allocated — Action for                 In Case T-26/99, Trabisco SA, established in Cognac (France),
damages — Admissibility — Possibility of relying on                     represented by J.-C. Fourgoux, avocat, with an address for
WTO rules — Misuse of powers — General principles of                    service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                         Community law)                                 Communities (Agents: initially G. Marenco and L. Guérin
                                                                        and, subsequently, Mr Marenco and F. Siredey-Garnier) —
                                                                        application for annulment of the Commission decision of
                         (2001/C 150/41)                                17 November 1998 rejecting a complaint by the applicant
                                                                        based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) —
                                                                        the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                        J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                  (Language of the case: German)                        J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                        a judgment on 14 February 2001, in which it:
In Case T-18/99 Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH,
established in Ostrau (Germany), represented by G. Meier,               1.    Dismisses the application.
avocat, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and H. van Vliet) — application for            2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
compensation for the loss which the applicant has allegedly
suffered as a result of the Commission introducing, under
Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down               (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
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), provisions which are
alleged to conflict with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules


title: Case T-301/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2008 — Laura Ashley v OHIM — Tiziana Bucci (LAURA ASHLEY)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2008 — Laura Ashley v OHIM — Tiziana Bucci (LAURA ASHLEY)
   (Case T-301/08) (1)

   (2008/C 327/80)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  13 October 2005  in Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München Scania Finance France SA v Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co. (Brussels Convention — Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Meaning of  duly served )

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 October 2005
   in Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München Scania Finance France SA v Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co. (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Recognition and enforcement - Grounds for refusal - Meaning of ‘duly served’)
   (2005/C 296/09)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany), made by decision of 31 October 2003, registered at the Court on 15 December 2003 in the proceedings pending before that court between Scania Finance France SA and Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co., — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 27 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, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol annexed to that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a relevant international convention is applicable between the State in which the judgment is given and the State in which recognition is sought, the question whether the document instituting the proceedings was duly served must be determined in the light of the provisions of that convention, without prejudice to the use of direct transmission between public officers, where the State in which recognition is sought has not officially objected, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.


title: Case T-59/12: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2012 — Planet v European Commission

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/13

         Order of the General Court of 25 May 2012 — Planet v European Commission
   (Case T-59/12) (1)

   2012/C 209/23
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2005 in Case T-143/03 Elisabeth Saskia Smit v European Police Office (Europol) (Temporary staff — Europol staff — Non-extension of employment contract)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/23

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 1 March 2005
   in Case T-143/03 Elisabeth Saskia Smit v European Police Office (Europol) (1)

   (Temporary staff - Europol staff - Non-extension of employment contract)
   (2005/C 106/52)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-143/03: Elisabeth Saskia Smit, a former member of the staff of Europol, residing in Scheveningen (Netherlands), represented by F. Baltussen, P. de Casparis and D.C. Coppens, lawyers, against the European Police Office (Europol), the seat of which is at The Hague (Netherlands) (Agents: D. Heimans and K. Hennessy-Massaro, and, at the hearing, N. Urban) — application for annulment of Europol's decision not to extend the term of the applicant's contract of employment and for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánova, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 30 September 2002 by which Europol refused to renew the applicant's contract of employment and the decision of 27 February 2003 rejecting her complaint against the earlier decision;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Europol to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-119/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that court of 22 October 2004 in the case of Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed Artigianato v Spa Lucchini Siderurgica

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that court of 22 October 2004 in the case of Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed Artigianato v Spa Lucchini Siderurgica
   (Case C-119/05)
   (2005/C 132/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) (Italy) of 22 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ministero dell'Industria, Commercio ed Artigianato and Spa Lucchini Siderurgica on the following questions:

               1.

               In the light of the principle of the primacy of immediately applicable Community law, in the form in this case of general ECSC Decision No 3484 of 1985, the Commission decision of 20 June 1990, notified on 20 July 1990, and Commission decision No 5259 of 16 September 1996, requiring the recovery of aid — which all formed the basis for the recovery measure challenged in the present proceedings (namely Decree No 20357 of 20 September 1996 overturning Decrees Nos 17975 of 8 March 1996 and 18337 of 3 April 1996) — is it legally possible and compulsory for the national administrative authority to recover aid from a private recipient even though a final civil judgment has been delivered confirming the unconditional obligation to pay the aid in question?

               2.

               Or, in view of the generally accepted principle that decisions on the recovery of aid are governed by Community law but the implementation thereof and the associated recovery procedure, in the absence of Community provisions on the matter, is governed by national law (regarding which principle see the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 205 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor v Germany), is the recovery procedure rendered legally impossible by virtue of a specific judicial decision that has become res judicata (Article 2909 of the Civil Code), thereby being conclusive as between the private individual and the administration, and requires the administration to comply with it?


title: Case T-338/13: Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014  — Energa Power Trading v Commission

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/38

         Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014 — Energa Power Trading v Commission
   (Case T-338/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/62
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31. 8. 2013.


title: Case F-114/12: Action brought on 10 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/71

         Action brought on 10 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-114/12)
   2013/C 26/145
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. K. Rosiak, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decision which refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 11 July 2012 which refused to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance in Italy;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-201/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 252/41
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              to pay the costs.
The applicant contests the abovementioned decision of the
Commission in which it decides against acting upon the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant's request under Article 3 of Regulation No 17
for a finding of infringements of the Community rules on               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
competition in the EC Treaty and the EEA agreement                     those in Case T-197/97 (').
relating to reorganization rules and a levy to finance
those rules . The levy is imposed by regulation of the
                                                                       f 1 ) See p. 40 of this Official Journal .
Productschap Veen en Vlees ( PW) and the arrangements
are made and administered by the Stichting
Saneringsfonds Runderslachterijen ( SSR).
The applicant claims that the reorganization measures
concern decisions of associations of undertakings or                   Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Manuel Francisco
agreements between undertakings which restrict                         Caballero Montoya against Commission of the European
competition and ( may) adversely affect trade beteween                                                Communities
Member States. Those measures and primarily the
                                                                                ( Case T-201 /97 )
financing are made possible and safeguarded by the
authorities .                                                                                ( 97/C 252/86 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
Action brought on 1 July 1997 by Exportslachterij Chris                4 July by Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya, residing
Hogeslag BV and Groninger Vleeshandel BV against the                   in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagoitia
          Commission of the European Communities                       Basses, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Brussels at the Chambers of Mr Iturriagoitia Basses, 93
                       ( Case T-198/97 )
                                                                       Rue de la Corrége .
                         ( 97/C 252/ 85 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                       should :
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       — annul the Commission decisions of 10 September 1996
An action against the Commission of the European                              and 15 October 1996 in so far as they withhold the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             award of an allowance for a person treated as a
Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 1997 by                        dependent child, such decisions lacking an adequate
Exportslachterij Chris Hogeslag BV, established in Holten,                    statement of the reasons of which they are based, as
and Groninger Vleeshandel BV, established in Groningen,                       required by the provisions in force,
represented by A. P. J. M. de Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       — declare         that   the     annulment    of an administrative
Chambers of L. Frieden, 6 Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                              measure renders void any subsequent measure deriving
                                                                              from an earlier measure that has been annulled; and
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — order the European Commission to pay the costs,
                                                                              pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) or if appropriate Article 88
— declare void the decision of the Commission of the                          of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
     European Communities contained in the Commission 's                       Instance of the European Communities, and to
     letter to the applicant dated 23 April 1997 in Case                       reimburse the costs borne by the applicant in
     No IV/35.634/F3 Hogeslag — Groninger / PW+SSR,                           connection with these proceedings, such as the costs of
                                                                              travel , accommodation in Luxembourg and lawyer's
                                                                               fees, as provided for by Article 91 of those rules .
— find that the rules and agreements for the
     reorganization of the Netherlands' cattle slaughtering
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     sector infringe Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                        The applicant in these proceedings is the same as in Case
— order all other measures considered to be necessary,                  T-573/93 , which was determined by judgment of 19 June
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/42          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
1996 ('), which held to be unlawful the rejection of the                   Removal from the register of T-17/97 R (')
complaint submitted by him against a decision which,                                          ( 97/C 252/87
although recognizing his entitlement to the allowance for
persons treated as dependent children in respect of the                            (Language of the case: Italian)
first of his two sons, withheld the right to that allowance
for his second son. After that judgment was notified to            By order of 30 June 1997 the President of the Court of
him, the applicant requested the relevant Director-General         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
to extend the effect of that judgment to the years 1993 ,          the removal from the register of Case T-17/97 R:
1994 and 1995 . In its reply of 10 September 1996, the             Viglienzone Adriatica SpA v. Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities .
administrative authority granted that request only for the
period from 1 December 1992 to 30 November 1993 , on
                                                                   (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
the ground that the judgment of 19 June could not be
regarded as implying that a second allowance should be
granted for periods after those covered by the annulled
decision. A subsequent request for review of that decision
was also rejected, by decision of 15 October 1996 .
                                                                           Removal from the register of T-39/97 R (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/88 )
Consequently, whilst the applicant seeks, by virtue of the
judgment, a new decision covering all the periods of time                        (Language of the case: German)
for which, in his opinion, he is entitled to an allowance          By order of 13 June 1997 the President of the Court of
for a person treated as a dependent child for both his             First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
sons, the Commission has granted him that right only for           the removal from the register of Case T-39/97 R: T.
the period of time expressly mentioned in the body of the          Port GmbH & Co. v. Commission of the European
annulling judgment. In the applicant's view, the                   Communities .
Commission is exploiting the alleged imprecision of the
judgment as regards the periods following 30 November              (') OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
1993 in order to withhold a right which is lawfully vested
in him. He considers that the administrative authority is
thereby guilty of misuse of powers.
                                                                             Removal from the register of T-71/97 (')
The applicant considers that the judgment of 19 June
1996 is effective ex tunc and that the Commission should                                      ( 97/C 252/89
therefore review the case not only for the period to which                        (Language of the case: English)
the annulled decision relates but also for subsequent
periods .                                                          By order of 2 June 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
(') ECR-SC 1996 ] 11-909 .
                                                                   Case T-71/97: Monsanto Europe SA v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities.
                                                                   H OJ No C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997.


title: Case C-368/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by decision of that court of 12 August 2004 in the case of (1) Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, (2) Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, (3) Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik Gesellschaft mbH & CO KG, against (1) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, (2) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark, and (3) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by decision of that court of 12 August 2004 in the case of (1) Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, (2) Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, (3) Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik Gesellschaft mbH & CO KG, against (1) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, (2) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark, and (3) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten
   (Case C-368/04)
   (2004/C 273/26)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria) of 12 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 24 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, (2) Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, and (3) Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik Gesellschaft mbH & CO KG, against (1) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, (2) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and (3) the Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten, on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the prohibition on putting measures into effect under Article 88(3) EC preclude the application of a national legal provision which excludes businesses whose activity is not shown to consist primarily in the manufacture of goods from energy tax rebates and which must therefore be classified as aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC, but which was not notified to the Commission prior to the national entry into force of the rules, even where the Commission has found the measure to be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3) EC for a period in the past and the application for reimbursement relates to taxes payable for that period?

               2.

               If so,
               in such a case does the prohibition on putting measures into effect require a rebate even in cases where the applications were made by service businesses after the adoption of the Commission's decision for assessment periods prior to that date?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 September 1998 in Case T-188/95: Waterleiding Maatschappij 'Noord-West Brabant' NV v. Commission of the European Communities (State aids - Tax exemptions - Refusal to open the procedure laid down by Article 93(2) of the Treaty - Meaning of person concerned - Confirmatory act - Inadmissibility)

text:
7.11.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 340/17
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 15 September 1998                                              of 16 September 1998
                                                                  in Case T-188/95: Waterleiding Maatschappij Noord-
in Case T-140/95: Ryanair Limited v. Commission of the            West Brabant' NV v. Commission of the European
                 European Communities (1)                                                Communities (1)
(State aid Ð Formal investigation procedure under                 (State aids Ð Tax exemptions Ð Refusal to open the
Article 93(2) of the Treaty Ð Conditional decision                procedure laid down by Article 93(2) of the Treaty Ð
approving aid in the form of a capital injection to be            Meaning of person concerned Ð Confirmatory act Ð
carried out in tranches Ð Precondition of payment of the                                  Inadmissibility)
second tranche not satisfied Ð Subsequent decision
                                                                                (98/C 340/30)
authorising payment of the second tranche Ð Action for
                         annulment)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 340/29)
                                                                  In Case T-188/95: Waterleiding Maatschappij Noord-
                                                                  West Brabant' NV, with its registered office at
                                                                  Oudenbosch (Netherlands), represented by P. H. L. M.
               (Language of the case: English)                    Kuypers of the Breda Bar and H. M. Gilliams of the
                                                                  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                  the Chambers of J.-M. Bauler, 47 Grand-rue, against
                                                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. van
In Case T-140/95: Ryanair Limited, established in Dublin,         Vliet), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
represented by Trevor Soames and Alan Ryan, Solicitors,           M. Fierstra and J. S. van den Oosterkamp) Ð application
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  for the annulment of the Commission's Decision SG(95)
Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 rue Mathias                D/8442 of 3 July 1995 concerning Aid No NN 13/95 Ð
Hardt, against Commission of the European Communities             Netherlands Ð Wet belastingen op milieugrondslag Ð the
(Agents: Nicholas Khan and Anders Christian Jessen),              Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
supported by Ireland (Agents: Michael Buckley and Joseph          Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R.
Finnegan) and by Aer Lingus Group plc, established in             García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.
Dublin, represented by Paul Gallagher SC, of the Irish Bar,       Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
and by James O'Dwyer and Patrick McGovern, Solicitors,            has given a judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Maître ReneÂ Faltz, 6 rue Heine Ð
application for annulment of the Commission decision of           1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
21 December (OJ C 399 of 31.12.1994, p. 1), authorising
the Irish Government to pay the second tranche of the aid         2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those
to the Aer Lingus group approved by Commission                        incurred by the Commission;
Decision 94/118/EC of 21 December 1993 concerning aid
to be provided by the Irish Government to the Aer Lingus
                                                                  3. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its
group (OJ L 54 of 25.2.1994, p. 30) Ð the Court of First
                                                                      own costs.
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
C. W. Bellamy, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; A. Mair,        (1) OJ C 333 of 9.12.1995.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
15 September 1998, in which it:
1. dismisses the application;                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
                                                                  in Case T-95/96: Gestevisión Telecinco SA v. Commission
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the                        of the European Communities (1)
    Commission and Aer Lingus Group plc;
                                                                  (State aid Ð Public service television Ð Complaint Ð
                                                                  Action for declaration of failure to act Ð Commission's
                                                                  duty to investigate Ð Time-limit Ð Procedure under
                                                                              Article 93(2) Ð Serious difficulties)
3. orders Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (98/C 340/31)
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.                                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  In Case T-95/96: Gestevisión Telecinco SA, a company
                                                                  governed by Spanish law, established in Madrid (Spain),


title: Case T-253/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014  — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/31

         Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)
   (Case T-253/14)
   2014/C 253/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Chemo Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M.I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

      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 (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1022/2013-4, and accordingly order that figurative Community trade mark No 1 0 2 49  035‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification;

               —

               order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Chemo Ibérica, SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘EXELTIS’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 49  035

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Novartis AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EXELON’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-392/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Uszodaépítő kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály (Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input tax — New national legislation — Requirements as to the content of an invoice — Retroactive application — Loss of the right to deduct)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Uszodaépítő kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály
   (Case C-392/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input tax - New national legislation - Requirements as to the content of an invoice - Retroactive application - Loss of the right to deduct)
   2010/C 317/18
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uszodaépítő kft

      Defendant: APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály

      Re:

   Interpretation of Articles 17 and 20 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), and the general principles of Community law — New national legislation on VAT giving taxable persons the right to opt for its application, even retroactively, to cases in progress on the date of its entry into force — Application with retroactive effect, failing which the right to deduct is lost, of the new provisions regarding the requirements as to the contents of the invoice

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 167, 168 and 178 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the retroactive application of national legislation which, in the context of a reverse charge regime, makes the deduction of value added tax relating to construction works conditional upon the amendment of invoices for those services and the submission of a supplementary, amending tax declaration, while the tax authority concerned has all the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is, as the recipient of the supply of services at issue, liable to value added tax, and to ascertain the amount of tax deductible.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Dumez SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-126/95)

text:
No C 208/34            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— annul the decision by which the selection board in open
    competition COM/B/765 awarded the applicant marks                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    falling short of the prescribed minimum and refused to
    enter him on the list of successful candidates,                   The applicant explains that, for nearly 15 years, the Greek
                                                                      Government has been considering the construction of a new
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              international airport to serve Athens and replace the existing
                                                                      airport at Hellenikon. In view of the importance of that
                                                                      project for its economy, Greece expects to receive
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      considerable financial aid from the Community, in the form
                                                                      of credit from the structural funds and loans from the
The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of              European Investment Bank ( EIB ). After much political
the Commission, contests the decision of the selection board          debate, it was decided to locate the airport in the Spata area
in competition COM/B/765 to award him for the oral test               and to put out a restricted international invitation to
marks falling short of the prescribed minimum, resulting in           tender .
his not being included on the list of successful candidates for
that competition .
                                                                      From the nine consortia which took part in the invitation to
He alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons . The            tender, the Greek authorities selected two finalists : the first,
applicant specifically asked the selection board to inform            Athens Airport Associates ( AAA), led by Societe Auxiliaire
him of the reasons for its decision and of the criteria adopted       d'Entreprises ( SAE), comprised Aeroports de Paris, Siemens,
for evaluation of the oral test but there was no response to          the applicant company and four Greek partners ; the second,
his request.                                                          led by Hochtief, consisted exclusively of German
                                                                      untertakings .
The applicant was particularly entitled to seek an
explanation since the marks awarded in the oral test were             From then on, according to the applicant, the procedure —
astonishing having regard to the marks obtained in the                at the end of which the Greek authorities announced that the
written tests , which concerned the same subjects, and to the         Hochtief consortium had been selected — was vitiated in
applicant's experience . Such a discrepancy can be attributed         several respects . That led AAA to lodge a complaint on
only to a manifest error of assessment.                               26 August 1994 with the Commission, which was
                                                                      investigated by the relevant departments . On completion of
                                                                      that procedure , the Commissioner responsible for public
                                                                      contracts submitted a proposal to the other Commissioners
                                                                      collectively that the infringement procedure be initiated
                                                                      against the Hellenic Republic . However, at its meeting on
                                                                      29 March 1995 , the Commission as a body decided to reject
Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Dumez SA against the                 the complaint submitted by AAA. That decision is the
         Commission of the European Communities                       subject of the present action for annulment or, in the
                                                                      alternative, for failure to act.
                         ( Case T-126/95 )
                           ( 95/C 208/71 )
                                                                      First of all, the applicant submits that the Court's case-law,
                                                                      which disallows altogether actions by individuals against a
                 (Language of the case: French)                       refusal by the Commission to act on their complaints,
                                                                      cannot be applied in the present case , in so far as the purpose
An action against the Commission of the European                      of the infringement procedure, which the Commission had
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     been requested to set in motion, was to compel Greece to
Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1995 by                adopt, not an act of general application, but an individual
                                                                      decision of direct concern to the two finalists in the
Dumez SA, whose registered office is at Nanterre ( France ),
represented by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jean-Pierre                   tendering procedure . Secondly, the case-law in question no
Spitzer, of the Paris Bar.                                            longer seems applicable in view of the following
                                                                      considerations :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( a ) the national measure concerned is of a purely individual
                                                                            character;
— annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1995 ,
— in the alternative, declare that the Commission                     ( b ) the EC provisions which have been infringed by a
    unlawfully omitted to initiate the procedure for failure                Member State belong to the category of fundamental
    to fulfil its obligations against the Hellenic Republic, on             principles of Community law;
    account of the serious and repeated infringements of
    Community law committed by the Greek Government in                 (c ) the infringements have occurred in procedures for the
    connection with the procedure for awarding the                          award of public contracts which are scheduled to
    contract for the new Athens airport,                                    receive    considerable    financial    aid     from       the
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 8 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 208 /35
       Communities, such aid being, moreover, a prerequisite           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
       for their performance .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As regards the substance, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law :                                               The pleas in law and arguments are identical to those in Case
                                                                       T-126/95 .
( a ) Failure to state reasons : the contested decision does not
       state the reasons on which it is based, as required by
       Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
( b) Infringement of Article 155 of the EC Treaty: by failing
       to act in the present case , the Commission did not             Action brought on 3 June 1995 by Aeroports de Paris (ADP)
       discharge its duty under Article 155 of the Treaty to             against the Commission of the European Communities
       ensure that Greece applied Community law.
                                                                                ( Case T-l 28/95 )
(c ) Error in law or manifest error of assessment: the                                          ( 95/C 208/73 )
       Commission has committed either an error in law, if it
       considered that there was no reason to take further                            (Language of the case: French)
       steps against Greece on the ground that Community
       law had not been infringed, or a manifest error of
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
       assessment, if it considered that the infringements in          Communities was brought before the Court of First
       question were not sufficient to justify the initiation of       Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 1995 by
       the infringement procedure against the Hellenic                 Aeroports de Paris (ADP ), whose registered office is in Paris,
       Republic . It can scarcely be disputed , in the applicant's
                                                                       represented by Hugues Calvet of the Paris Bar, with an
       view, that the principle of equal treatment of tenderers        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
       has been infringed in several respects and that the Greek       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
       authorities have manifestly disregarded Articles 30 and
       59 of the EC Treaty and the Council directives on the
       award of public contracts.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the Commission 's decision of 29 March 1995
                                                                           refusing to take further steps against the Hellenic
                                                                           Republic for failure to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           Community law with respect to the award of the public
                                                                           contract for Athens airport,
Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Societe Auxiliaire
                                                                       — in the alternative, declare that the Commission failed to
d'Entreprises ( SAE ) against the Commission of the
                                                                           act,
                       European Communities
                          ( Case T-127/95 )                            — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs
                            ( 95/C 208/72 )                                incurred by ADP in connection with the present
                                                                           application for annulment.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European                       The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those in Case
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                     T-126/95 .
 Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1995 by
 Societe Auxiliaire d'Entreprises ( SAE ), whose registered
 office is at Issy-les-Moulineaux ( France ), represented by
 Alexandre Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Action brought on 9 June 1995 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1995 ,                                          ( Case T-130/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/74 )
 — in the alternative, declare that the Commission
      unlawfully omitted to initiate the procedure for failure
      to fulfil its obligations against the Hellenic Republic, on                     (Language of the case: French)
      account of the serious and repeated infringements of
      Community law committed by the Greek Government in               An action against the Commission of the European
      connection with the procedure for awarding the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
      contract for the new Athens airport,                             Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 1995 by


title: Case T-644/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/37

         Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission
   (Case T-644/13)
   2014/C 24/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Serco Belgium (Brussels, Belgium); SA Bull NV (Auderghem, Belgium); and Unisys Belgium (Brussels) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission's decision of 30 October 2013, communicated to applicants by letter dated 31 October 2013, rejecting the OPTIMUS consortium's bid for tender DIGIT/R2/PO/2012/026 — ITIC-SM (IT service management for the integrated and consolidated IT desktop environment of the European Commission) (OJ 2012/S 69-112095) and awarding the contract to the GISIS consortium; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law
   The applicants' offer was rejected because of the extremely low marks awarded by the Commission on the award sub-criteria relating to staffing. In short, the Commission considered that the number of staff proposed by applicants is too low and therefore inadequate to assure the requested quality of service.
   The applicants' plea alleges that its bid was rejected on the basis of unlawful award criteria. The sub-criteria relating to staffing are not aimed at identifying the tender which is economically the most advantageous since:

               —

               as the Commission expressly admits, the answers to these criteria provided by tenderers do not give rise to (contractual) requirements. The applicants contend that it is contrary to EU law to evaluate tenderers on the basis of statements which are not binding;

               —

               these sub-criteria are not related to the quality of the tender (the level of service that will be provided) but rather to the tenderer's intrinsic ability to commit a sufficient number of staff in order to meet the performance requirements imposed by the service level agreement (SLA). These sub-criteria are therefore selection criteria;

               —

               since no optimal number of staff was mentioned and no precise indication was given on how the Commission would value the indicated number of staff, and since the essence of the Commission's integration and consolidation project, as made clear by the tender specifications, is to achieve the high standard of quality contractually imposed in the most efficient manner, these sub-criteria led to an unpredictable result;

               —

               in any event, if the Commission had doubts that the applicants would be able to perform according to the terms offered (because of the perceived insufficient numbers of staff), it should have sought clarifications prior to rejecting an offer that was 47 million euros cheaper than the successful bid.


title: Case T-88/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ALPHAREN — Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Consideration of new evidence by the Board of Appeal following a judgment annulling a decision — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-88/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALPHAREN - Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Consideration of new evidence by the Board of Appeal following a judgment annulling a decision - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 078/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, A. Smith and D. Meale, Solicitors)

      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: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2015 (Case R 2387/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Opko Ireland Global Holdings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.