title: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 29 June 2004 in Case C-110/02: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Aid granted by the Portuguese Government to pig farmers — Aid intended to allow the repayment of aid declared incompatible with the common market — Council decision declaring such aid compatible with the common market — Illegality — Third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Full Court)
   of 29 June 2004
   in Case C-110/02: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Aid granted by the Portuguese Government to pig farmers - Aid intended to allow the repayment of aid declared incompatible with the common market - Council decision declaring such aid compatible with the common market - Illegality - Third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC)
   (2004/C 217/03)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-110/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaolalla Gadea, D. Triantafyllou and V. Di Bucci) v Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and F. Florindo Gijón) supported by Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes and I. Palma) and French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues and F. Million) — application for the annulment of Council Decision 2002/114/EC of 21 January 2002 authorising the Government of Portugal to grant aid to Portuguese pig farmers who were beneficiaries of the measures granted in 1994 and 1998 (OJ 2002 L 43, p. 18) — the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2002/114 /EC of 21 January 2002 authorising the Government of Portugal to grant aid to Portuguese pig farmers who were beneficiaries of the measures granted in 1994 and 1998;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case C-212/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-212/05)
   (2005/C 193/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Gertraud Hartmann and Freistaat Bayern on the following questions:

               (a)

               Is a German national who, while continuing his employment relationship as a post office official in Germany, moved his permanent residence from Germany to Austria in 1990 and has since then carried on his occupation as a frontier worker to be regarded as a migrant worker within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (‘Regulation No 1612/68’) for periods between January 1994 and September 1998?

               (b)

               If so:
               Does it constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 if the non-working spouse of the person mentioned in (a), who lives in Austria and is an Austrian national, was excluded from receiving German child-raising allowance in the period in question because she did not have either her permanent residence or her habitual place of stay in Germany?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 /II), p. 475.


title: Case T-162/04: Action brought on 30 April 2004 on by Eugénio Branco Lda against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/20

         Action brought on 30 April 2004 on by Eugénio Branco Lda against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-162/04)
   (2004/C 217/37)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 April 2004 against Commission of the European Communities by Eugénio Branco Lda, represented by Bolota Belchior, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 8 August 2004 which failed to approve the claim for payment of the balance due under the European Social Fund (ESF) financing procedure, did not allow certain expenses submitted by the applicant, thereby reducing the ESF contributions for training approved by the Commission decision, and called on the applicant to repay the sum of EUR 39 899.07, which it had received as advances from the ESF, and the national public contribution from the Portuguese State;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas and principal arguments adduced in support
   On 29 June 1986, the applicant submitted to the Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu (Department of European Social Fund Affairs – DAFSE) of the Portuguese State an application for financing to be granted by the ESF for vocational training for the period from 2 January 1987 to 31 December 1987, which was approved by Commission decision. The applicant requested payment of the balance from the DAFSE, there being a balance in favour of the applicant. The DAFSE analysed the accounts and documents relating to the applicant and documents relating to the training actions and, by decision of 13 March 1989, approved the request for payment of the balance. Similarly, the Commission approved the request for payment of the balance. On 8 August 2004, the Commission adopted the decision against which these proceedings are brought.
   According to the applicant, the decision infringes Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983, giving effect to Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the tasks of the European Social Fund, since the applicant rigorously complied with all the relevant laws, regulations, directives, criteria, requirements and conditions when its application to the ESF was approved, thereby acquiring subjective vested rights. The contested decision thus infringes vested rights.
   The decision at issue also breaches the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, since the approval decision gave the applicant the right and the legally significant expectation that it would receive the contributions if it carried out the training in accordance with the agreed conditions. According to the applicant, the Commission could have taken the action which it has now purported to take at the start of 1989, and by not doing so breached the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.
   Finally, the contested decision represents a serious breach of the principle of proportionality, since the applicant incurred the expenditure on the basis that the Commission would fulfil its commitment and its agreement to contribute.


title: Case C-371/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Svea Hovrätt by order of that Court of 14 October 2002 in the case of Björnekulla Fruktindustrier Aktiebolag against Procordia Food Aktiebolag

text:
C 305/16               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
Action brought on 15 October 2002 by the Commission                       In cases where a product is handled at several stages before it
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        reaches the consumer what is or are, under Article 12(2)(a) of
                              Belgium                                     the Trade Mark Directive (1), the relevant class or classes of
                                                                          persons for determining whether a trade mark has become the
                         (Case C-370/02)                                  common name in the trade for a product in respect of which
                                                                          it is registered?
                         (2002/C 305/28)
                                                                          (1 ) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                               approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                           marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Claire-Françoise Durand and
Minas Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Action brought on 18 October 2002 by the Commission
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
       and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
       with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on                                        (Case C-375/02)
       the landfill of waste (1), and by failing, in any event, to
       communicate such measures to the Commission, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      (2002/C 305/30)
       under that directive;
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 October
                                                                          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                          acting as Agents.
The time-limit for transposition expired on 16 July 2001. As
regards the Region of Wallonia, the Kingdom of Belgium has
still not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive or, at all events, has not communicated those
measures to the Commission.                                               1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures
                                                                                to ensure that waste deposited in the disposal sites at
                                                                                Castelliri (Frosinone) is recovered or disposed of without
( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.
                                                                                endangering human health and without using procedures
                                                                                or methods which could harm the environment, and by
                                                                                failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the
                                                                                holder of waste deposited in the disposal sites at Castelliri
                                                                                (Frosinone) has such waste handled by a private or public
                                                                                collector or an undertaking carrying out the operations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Svea Hovrätt                           provided for in Annex II A or II B to Directive 75/442/
by order of that Court of 14 October 2002 in the case of                         EEC (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ( 2), or
Björnekulla Fruktindustrier Aktiebolag against Procordia                         himself recovers or disposes of such waste, the Italian
                         Food Aktiebolag                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4
                                                                                and 8 of that directive;
                         (Case C-371/02)
                                                                          2.     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 305/29)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Svea Hovrätt (Svea
Court of Appeal) of 14 October 2002, received at the Court                The first paragraph of Article 4 of the directive provides that
Registry on 16 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                  Member States are to adopt the necessary measures to ensure
the case of Björnekulla Fruktindustrier Aktiebolag against                that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering
Procordia Food Aktiebolag on the following question:                      human health and without using processes or methods which


title: Case C-147/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), Judicial Section, by a judgment of that court of 4 February 2004 in the case of De Groot en Slot Allium B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. against the Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry and the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener: Comité économique agricole régional fruits et légumes de la région Bretagne (CERAFEL)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/44

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), Judicial Section, by a judgment of that court of 4 February 2004 in the case of De Groot en Slot Allium B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. against the Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry and the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener: Comité économique agricole régional fruits et légumes de la région Bretagne (CERAFEL)
   (Case C-147/04)
   (2004/C 106/76)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat (France), Judicial Section, of 4 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of De Groot en Slot Allium B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. v Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry and Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener: Comité économique agricole regional fruits et legumes de la region Bretagne (CERAFEL) – on the following question:
   Must the provisions of Directive 70/458 (1) in conjunction with those of Directive 92/33 (2) be interpreted in such a way that it is possible to include in the common catalogue of varieties only varieties of shallots which reproduce without seeds, by vegetative propagation, and, accordingly, could the varieties ‘Matador’ and ‘Ambition’ lawfully be included in the common catalogue in the entry dealing with shallots?

      (1)  Council Directive 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the marketing of vegetable seed (OJ English Special Edition 1970 (III), p. 674).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed (OJ L 157 of 10.06.1992, p. 1).


title: Case T-292/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Région Île-de-France v Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/41

         Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Région Île-de-France v Commission
   (Case T-292/17)
   (2017/C 231/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Région Île-de-France (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 (SA.26763 — (2014/C) –), concerning the aid scheme implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it classified that scheme as State aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission refused to classify the support scheme for the region as existing aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of selectivity.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of undue economic advantage.


title: Case C-239/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of military equipment)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-239/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment)
   2010/C 51/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, A. Samoni-Rantou and K. Boskovits, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and the corresponding provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p) — Duty-free imports of military equipment — Refusal to calculate the amounts which should have been collected and allocated to the Communities’ own resources.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by exempting imports of military material from customs duties in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 and by refusing to calculate, declare and make available to the European Commission in good time the own resources which were not collected because of that exemption and the default interest payable because of the failure to make those own resources available to the European Commission in good time, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case C-468/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Failure to transpose)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-468/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Failure to transpose)
   2009/C 282/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) or to inform thereof

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;

               2.

               orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.


title: Case T-404/12: Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Toshiba Corporation v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/19

         Action brought on 12 September 2012 — Toshiba Corporation v Commission
   (Case T-404/12)
   2012/C 343/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Toshiba Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz and S. Sakellariou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 27 June 2012 in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines;

               —

               Alternatively, reduce the fine as the General Court finds appropriate; and, in any event,

               —

               Award the applicant its costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration and the principle of proportionality by prematurely adopting its decision of 27 June 2012 in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines, before the European Court of Justice handed down its judgment in Case C-498/11 P Toshiba Corporation v European Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Toshiba’s rights of defence by not issuing a Statement of Objections before the adoption of the decision of 27 June 2012 in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — fines; and by not addressing in the Letter of Facts an important element of the fine calculation imposed by the said decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment in treating the applicant differently to the European manufacturers of Gas Insulated Switchgear when basing the applicant’s fine on TM T&D’s starting amount rather than the applicant’s turnover;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning when setting TM T&D’s starting amount.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment in failing to differentiate in the level of culpability of Toshiba compared to the European manufacturers of Gas Insulated Switchgear.


title: Case T-324/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — Firma Van Parys v Commission (Customs union — Imports of bananas from Ecuador — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Request for remission of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Error by the customs authorities — Obvious negligence on the part of the interested party)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2013 — Firma Van Parys v Commission
   (Case T-324/10) (1)

   (Customs union - Imports of bananas from Ecuador - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Request for remission of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Error by the customs authorities - Obvious negligence on the part of the interested party)
   2013/C 129/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert and subsequently by Vlaemminck, R. Verbeke and J. Auwerx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Keppenne and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, Agents, and by P. Vander Schueren, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 of 6 May 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor but is not justified in the particular case of another debtor.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(3) of Commission Decision C(2010) 2858 final of 6 May 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor but is not justified in the particular case of another debtor;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Firma Léon Van Parys NV;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-466/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Jean-Michel Adrien and Others v Prime Minister, Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre de la Décentralisation et de la Fonction publique (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — National detached officials within an EU institution or body — Old-age pension — Right to opt — Suspension or maintenance of the affiliation to the national pension scheme — Limitation on the aggregation of the pension acquired under the national pension scheme with that acquired under the EU pension scheme)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Jean-Michel Adrien and Others v Prime Minister, Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre de la Décentralisation et de la Fonction publique
      (Case C-466/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - National detached officials within an EU institution or body - Old-age pension - Right to opt - Suspension or maintenance of the affiliation to the national pension scheme - Limitation on the aggregation of the pension acquired under the national pension scheme with that acquired under the EU pension scheme))
      (2016/C 441/05)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean-Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm, Éléonore von Bardeleben

         Defendants: Prime Minister, Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre de la Décentralisation et de la Fonction publique

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has the effect that a national official seconded to an EU institution or body who chooses to remain affiliated to the national pension scheme for the duration of his secondment loses all or part of the advantages accruing from his affiliation to that scheme if he completes 10 years’ service with the European Union entitling him to a pension under the European Union pension scheme.

         (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case T-125/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark UNICORN — Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN and earlier national figurative mark representing a unicorn’s head — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)
   (Case T-125/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark UNICORN - Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN and earlier national figurative mark representing a unicorn’s head - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 462/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2015 (Case R 150/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Unicorn and Mercilink Equipment Leasing.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Unicorn a.s. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case C-457/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/14/EC — Insurance against civil liability — Motor vehicles — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-457/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/14/EC - Insurance against civil liability - Motor vehicles - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 256/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2005/14/EC;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case F-107/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Ntouvas v ECDC (Civil service — Contract staff — 2010 appraisal procedure — Application for annulment of the appraisal report)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Ntouvas v ECDC
   (Case F-107/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Contract staff - 2010 appraisal procedure - Application for annulment of the appraisal report)
   2013/C 46/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Sundbyberg, Sweden) (represented by: E. Mylonas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: R. Trott, Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period of 1 January to 31 December 2010

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ntouvas to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 69.


title: Action brought on 27 February 1997 by T. Port GmbH & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-39/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 131 /23
Action brought on 27 February 1997 by T. Port GmbH &c                 schaft und Ernahrung, for the short-term issue to it, for
         Co. against the Commission of the European                   the purpose of securing its economic survival which it
                           Communities                                considered to be threatened by events amounting to force
                         ( Case T-39/97)                              majeure, of import licences in addition to the import
                                                                      licences issued by the national authorities or to be issued
                          ( 97/C 131/53 )                             by them for the years 1997 to 1999 . It sought those
                                                                      further import licences as a transitional measure under
                                                                      Article 30 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 to compensate
                (Language of the case: German)                        for hardship which, without fault on its part, has befallen
                                                                      it as a result of the provision relating to reference periods
                                                                      in Article 19 ( 2 ) of that regulation.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
1997 by T. Port GmbH & Co ., Hamburg, represented by                  The applicant now seeks a declaration that the
Gerd Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for                Commission has infringed the abovementioned provisions
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden,                  of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 by failing to grant its
34b Rue Philippe II.                                                  applications and claims in the result that its fundamental
                                                                      rights protected by Community law, namely the right to
                                                                      property and the freedom to exercise a profession, have
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          been infringed by that Regulation and that the
                                                                      Commission had been obliged to adopt transitional
                                                                      measures to prevent those fundamental rights from being
— declare that the Commission has breached its duty                   violated .
     under Article 30 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 by
     failing to grant the application made by the applicant
     on 19 December 19 96 for the purpose of securing its
     economic survival as an importer of bananas, in which
     it sought, in addition to the licences issued by the
     national authorities or to be issued by them for 1997,
     1998 and 1999, the issue, for the short term:                    Action brought on 27 February 1997 by Pearle BV, Hans
                                                                      Prijsoptiek Franchise BV, Van der Wiel BV, Prins Brillen
                                                                      BV, Brilservice BV and Optical Retail Group BV against
     in 1997, of import licences for an operator in
                                                                              the Commission of the European Communities
     category A in respect of 100 308 227 kg;
                                                                                ( Case T-40/97)
     in 1988 , of like import licences in respect of                                              ( 97/C 131/54 )
     102 911 007 kg;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
     in 1999, of like import licences in respect of
     103 994 145 kg; and
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
     in 2000, of like import licences in respect of                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     107 628 379 kg,                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
                                                                       1997 by Pearle BV, of Soesterberg (Netherlands), Hans
                                                                       Prijsoptiek Franchise BV, of Rotterdam (Netherlands ), Van
     as    a  transitional    measure   under   Article  30   of       der Wiel BV, of Leiden (Netherlands ), Prins Brillen BV, of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 to compensate for                    Amsterdam (Netherlands ), Brilservice BV, of Amsterdam
     hardship which, without fault on its part, has befallen           ( Netherlands ), and Optical Retail Group BV, of Eindhoven
     it as a result of the provision relating to reference             (Netherlands ), represented by S. N. Vlaar, of the
                                                                       Amsterdam Bar.
     periods in Article 19 ( 2 ) of that Regulation;
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission, contained in a
                                                                            letter of 31 December 1996, refusing to act on their
 The applicant, a small undertaking which trades in                        complaint of 29 December 1995 ,
 bananas, formally applied to the European Commission
 by letter of 16 December 1996, following the judgment of
 the Court of Justice of 26 November 1996 in Case C-68/                — order the Commission to act on the applicants'
 95 T. Port GmbH & Co . v. Bundesanstalt fur Landwirt                      complaint.


title: Case T-692/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/43

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA
   (Case T-692/13)
   2014/C 45/74
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio (BG), Italy) (represented by: G. Greco, M. Muscardini and G. Carullo, lawyers)

      Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               primarily: annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;

               —

               in the alternative: declare that there was neither any fraudulent subdivision of nor any intent to avoid the activity for which co-financing was provided and, accordingly, annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;

               —

               in any event: recalculate the reduction in financing decided on by the Commission to an amount which is considered more appropriate in the light of the principle of proportionality;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present case is the same as in Case T-270/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA (OJ C 207 of 20 July 2013, p. 46).
   It should be noted in this regard that, in relation to the present proceedings, both defendants have claimed that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is directed against a measure which, in their view, is not final.
   According to the applicant, it has brought an action against the decision adopted by TEN-T EA on 23 October 2013 as a purely precautionary, defensive, measure in order to draw attention once more to the unlawfulness of the decision to reduce financing.
   The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put forward in Case T-270/13.


title: Case T-780/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark mediaexpert — Earlier national word mark mediaexpert — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — Registration certificate for the earlier mark — Translation — Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)
   (Case T-780/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark mediaexpert - Earlier national word mark mediaexpert - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - Registration certificate for the earlier mark - Translation - Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations))
   (2017/C 293/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mediaexpert S.A. (Warsaw)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2583/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. and Mediaexpert S.A.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case F-41/16: Action brought on 11 August 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/29

         Action brought on 11 August 2016 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-41/16)
   (2016/C 371/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Meyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment or setting aside of the appointing authority’s decisions to reclaim the education allowances allegedly unjustifiably received by the applicant and to refuse the applicant further additional education allowances and an order that the defendant shall repay the deductions.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2016 on the applicant’s complaints R/18/16 and R/19/16 and the thereby contested orders for the academic year 2014/15;

               —

               order the defendant to repay the unjust deductions on the basis of that decision to the applicant;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case T-176/16: Action brought on 20 April 2016 — Kofola ČeskoSlovensko v EUIPO — Mionetto (UGO)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/25

         Action brought on 20 April 2016 — Kofola ČeskoSlovensko v EUIPO — Mionetto (UGO)
   (Case T-176/16)
   (2016/C 222/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kofola ČeskoSlovensko (Ostrava, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mionetto SpA (Valdobbiadene, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘UGO’ — Application for registration No 11 541 851

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2016 in Case R 2707/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 as amended and the rules of law relating to its application, in particular, incorrect consideration of the likelihood of confusion of the trademarks in question.


title: Case T-510/09 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2010 by V against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 October 2009 in Case F-33/08 V v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/42

      Appeal brought on 12 April 2010 by V against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 October 2009 in Case F-33/08 V v Commission
      (Case T-510/09 P)
      (2010/C 161/67)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought by the appellant

                  —

                  Declare the appeal admissible and well-founded and, in consequence,

                  —

                  set aside the judgment under appeal delivered on 21 October 2009 by the First Chamber of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-33/08, notified to the appellant on 26 October 2009, dismissing as unfounded the appellant’s action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 May 2007, informing her that she did not satisfy the physical fitness requirements necessary for the performance of her duties, and for an order that the Commission pay damages to the appellant for the losses she claims to have suffered;

                  —

                  grant the form of order sought by the appellant before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the present appeal, the appellant requests the General Court to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 21 October 2009, delivered in Case F-33/08 V v Commission, dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to engage the appellant on the ground that she does not satisfy the physical fitness requirements necessary for the performance of her duties, and a claim for damages.
      In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward three pleas in law alleging errors of law, distortion of the evidence in the documents in the case and erroneous and inadequate grounds of the judgment.
      First, the appellant challenges the judgment under appeal in so far as the Tribunal found that it had not been established that the irregularity concerning Dr K’s intervention had influenced the procedural steps that culminated in the adoption of the decision at issue.
      Second, the appellant takes the view that the CST misconstrued the duty to respect the confidentiality of medical information and the patient’s right as an individual to respect for such confidentiality, in so far as it considered itself to be prevented by the appellant’s reliance on that principle from reviewing the legality of the medical committee’s opinion as to her non-fitness for work.
      Third, the appellant is of the view that the CST vitiated its reasoning by a failure to state reasons with regard to its appraisal of the arguments concerning the non-registration of the chairman of the medical committee on the list of the Belgian Ordre des médecins (Belgian Medical Council).


title: Case C-239/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 21 June 1999 in the case of NACHI Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
28.8.1999                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 246/17
Action brought on 24 June 1999 by the Commission of                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
 the European Communities against the French Republic                     Düsseldorf by order of that court of 21 June 1999 in the
                                                                          case of NACHI Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Krefeld
                            (Case C-237/99)
                                                                                (Case C-239/99)
                           (1999/C 246/34)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/35)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office            dorf (Financial Court, Düsseldorf) of 21 June 1999, received at
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    the Court Registry on 24 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          in the case of NACHI Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
                                                                          on the following questions:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         1. Is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 (1) invalid?
— declare that, in the context of various tendering procedures            2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative,
     concerning public contracts for the construction of hous-                 from what point in time is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC)
     ing which were carried out by offices publics d’aménagement               No 2849/92 to be considered void in regard to the
     et de construction (public development and construction                   plaintiff?
     entities) and by sociétés anonymes d’habitations à loyer modéré
     (low-cost housing companies), the French Republic has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/37/EEC (1),      (1) OJ L 286 of 1.10.1992, p. 2.
     in particular Article 11(2) thereof;
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
                                                                          by judgment of that court of 10 June 1999 concerning an
Failure to comply with the obligation, laid down in Article               application for a rehearing made by Försäkringsaktiebola-
11(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC, requiring publication in the                                         get Skandia (publ)
Official Journal of the European Communities: the French auth-
orities take refuge behind the categorisation applied under
national law to offices publics d’aménagement et de construction                                    (Case C-240/99)
(OPACs) and to sociétés anonymes d’habitations à loyer modéré
(SAHLMs), in order to avoid attributing to them the statue of
contracting authorities within the meaning of Article 1(b) of                                       (1999/C 246/36)
the directive. However, the term ‘body governed by public law’
is a term of Community law. Both OPACs and SAHLMs meet                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
all the criteria laid down in Article 1(b) of the directive.              European Communities by judgment of the Regeringsrätten
Although OPACs are entities of an industrial and commercial               on 10 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on 25 June
nature, and although SAHLMs possess the form of commercial                1999, for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning an
companies, they have been established for the specific purpose            application for a rehearing made by Försäkringsaktiebolaget
of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an                   Skandia (publ):
industrial or commercial character (they produce and manage
housing to be let to persons on low incomes), they have legal
personality and they are closely controlled by the State, by              Does an insurance company’s commitment, of the kind
regional or local authorities or by other bodies governed by              which Skandia plans to assume, to run the business of a
public law (in the case of OPACs, as regards the composition              wholly-owned subsidiary constitute an insurance transaction
of their administrative board and the power of control                    or insurance transactions within the meaning of Article 13B(a)
exercised by the State, and in the case of SAHLMs, as regards             of the Sixth Directive? (1)
the power of control).
                                                                          (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                              harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-75/04: Actionbrought on 17 February 2004 by Arch Chemicals,Inc., and Arch Timber Protection Limited against the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/72

         Action brought on 17 February 2004 by Arch Chemicals, Inc., and Arch Timber Protection Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-75/04)
   (2004/C 106/145)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2004 by Arch Chemicals, Inc., Norwalk, Connecticut, USA and Arch Timber Protection Limited, Castleford, United Kingdom, represented by Mr K. Van Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu, lawyers.
   The applicants claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the annulment of Article 3 (and annex II), Article 4(2), Article 5(3), Article 10(2), second paragraph, Article 11(3), Article 13 and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000;

               —

               declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

               —

               declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1Euro for damages suffered as a result of the adoption and entry into force of the contested measure, as well as any applicable interest, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicants are producers of biocide active substances and of biocidal products, namely, non-agricultural pesticidal products, containing these active substances. The applicants hold marketing authorisations in several Member States and many of their products are protected through intellectual property rights.
   In accordance with Directive 98/8/EC (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (2), the applicants notified their active substances and product type combinations and, therefore, became participants in the review programme within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 (3). Under the rules of the second stage of the review programme, the applicants are obliged to develop expensive proprietary data, such as scientific studies and risk assessments, and submit these data to a designated Rapporteur Member State.
   The applicants seek the annulment of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2032/2003 because it fails to set a deadline by which companies other than the participants' can no longer market biocidal products notified by participants and listed in annex II to the regulation. Furthermore, according to the applicants, Article 3(2) and annex II of Regulation No 2032/2003 fail to list the names of the applicants as participants for their notified active substances and product type combinations. Also, the applicants seek the annulment of Article 5(3) and preamble 10 of Regulation No 2032/2003 because it allows companies who are not participants, to apply for the inclusion of an active substance or product type combination under more favourable conditions. The applicants also contest Article 10(2), second paragraph, of Regulation No 2032/2003 because it allows the Rapporteur Member State to take into account additional information submitted by others. The applicants also object to the fact that Article 11(3) and preamble 18 allow the defendant to conduct unilaterally a comparative assessment of active substances and product type combinations before the conclusion of the review. Article 13 and preamble 20 are being contested by the applicants in that they allow the defendant to suspend or stop the review on the basis of a proposal of the defendant submitted under Directive 76/769/EEC (4). Hereby, a hazard-based assessment would be preferred over the sector specific risk assessment of Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Finally, the applicants seek annulment of Article 14(2) because it retroactively and without a proper reasoning amends the notification rules contained in Regulation No 1896/2000, thus changing a decisive factor for the applicants for participation in the review programme.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the defendant misused its powers under Directive 98/8/EC by implementing the directive in a way that goes beyond the text of the directive and changes the applicants' rights and expectations. The applicants furthermore claim that the defendant had no competence to introduce in Regulation No 2032/2003 the contested provisions without consulting the European Parliament and the Council. According to the applicants, Directive 98/8/EC should have been modified in order to introduce these provisions.
   The applicants also submit that the defendant violated the EC Treaty and principles of Community Law, such as the Treaty provisions on fair competition, the principles of undistorted competition, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, proportionality, non-discrimination, the right to property, the right to pursue a trade and, finally, the supremacy of international agreements, specifically the protection of intellectual property rights under the TRIPs agreement.
   In support of their application, the applicants also submit a plea of illegality against Article 6(2) of Regulation No 1896/2000 and Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC.
   The applicants state that Article 6(2) of Regulation No 1896/2000 forms the basis of the contested Articles 3 and 4(2), as well as annex II, of Regulation No 2032/2003 and sets the rule that notified active substance or product type combinations can be freely marketed by any other company which has neither access to the applicants' protected data, nor has developed an equivalent data set. The applicants claim that Article 6(2) of Regulation No 1896/2000 ignores the data protection provisions of Directive 98/8/EC and that the defendant misused its powers and lacked the competence to adopt it.
   The applicants state furthermore that Articles 9(a), 10(3) and 11 of Directive 98/8/EC are related to the contested Article 3 and annex II of Regulation No 2032/2003. According to the applicants, Article 9(a) of Directive 98/8/EC is illegal because it discriminates between active substances that were on the market before 14 May 2000 and active substances that were not on the market on that date, therefore causing unfair competition. Furthermore, the applicants submit that Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC are inconsistent with other provisions of that directive. Specifically, they fail to establish, contrary to Article 12 and 27 of Directive 98/8/EC, a transparent link between the applicants and their notified active substance or product type combinations. Finally, the applicants claim that Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC should be declared illegal so that Member States are no longer allowed to continue applying their pre-existing legislation for maintaining biocidal product registrations that are not supported by a notification at the Community level.

      (1)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ L 123, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (OJ L 228, p. 6).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ L 307, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ L 262, p. 201).


title: Case T-192/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA v OHIM — Leggett & Platt (LURA-FLEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LURA-FLEX — Earlier national figurative marks containing the word element flex — Submission to the Opposition Division out of time of translations of documents provided in support of the reputation of earlier marks — Obligation on the Board of Appeal to assess the need to take account of the documents translated)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA v OHIM — Leggett & Platt (LURA-FLEX)
   (Case T-192/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LURA-FLEX - Earlier national figurative marks containing the word element ‘flex’ - Submission to the Opposition Division out of time of translations of documents provided in support of the reputation of earlier marks - Obligation on the Board of Appeal to assess the need to take account of the documents translated)
   (2007/C 199/59)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Madrid (Spain) (represented by: initially by R. Ocquet, and subsequently, I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and G. Schneider)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Leggett & Platt, Inc., (Carthage, Missouri, United States) (represented by: G. Cronin and S. Castley, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2004 (Case R 333/2003-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA and Leggett & Platt, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 March 2004 (Case R 333/2003-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-123/12: Action brought on 15 March 2012 — Smartbook v OHIM (SMARTBOOK)

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/8

         Action brought on 15 March 2012 — Smartbook v OHIM (SMARTBOOK)
   (Case T-123/12)
   2012/C 157/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Smartbook AG (Offenburg, Germany) (represented by C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, lawyers)

      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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 December 2011 (Case R 799/2011-2);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SMARTBOOK’ (application No 8 426 348) for goods in Classes 9, 16 and 28

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character and is not descriptive of the goods at issue.


title: Case T-20/16: Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Indeutsch International v OHIM — Crafts Americana (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/36

         Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Indeutsch International v OHIM — Crafts Americana (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines)
   (Case T-20/16)
   (2016/C 106/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: D. Stone, D. Meale, A. Dykes, Solicitors and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of repeated curves between parallel lines) — Community trade mark No 8 884 264

      Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1814/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-391/11: Action brought on 25 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/4

         Action brought on 25 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-391/11)
   2011/C 305/05
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to transpose correctly the provisions of Article 2(1) and (3) and Article 5(1), (2) and (4) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2000/53/EC expired on 21 April 2002. However, at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, at least, had not informed the Commission of them.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.


title: Case T-115/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Deza v ECHA (REACH — Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Supplement to the entry of the substance di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on that list — Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Deza v ECHA
   (Case T-115/15) (1)

   ((REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Supplement to the entry of the substance di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) on that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006))
   (2017/C 202/27)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented: initially by M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and C. Buchanan, acting as Agents, and by M. Procházka et M. Mašková, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning and N. Lyshøj Malte, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and H. Stergiou, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents), and Kingdom of Norway (represented by: K. Moen and K. Moe Winther, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of a decision of 12 December 2014 taken by the Executive Director of ECHA by which the existing entry relating to the substance DEHP on the list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007, L 136, p. 3), was supplemented to the effect that that substance is also identified as a substance with endocrine-disrupting properties and which can have serious effects on the environment, within the meaning of Article 57(f) of that regulation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case F-67/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Angelo Sánchez v Council (Civil Service — Special leave — Serious illness of a parent — Method of calculating the number of days of' leave where several parents seriously ill)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Angelo Sánchez v Council
   (Case F-67/09) (1)

   (Civil Service - Special leave - Serious illness of a parent - Method of calculating the number of days of' leave where several parents seriously ill)
   2011/C 38/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicolás Angelo Sánchez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Zieleśkiewicz, M. Bauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing applications for special leave made by the applicant because of the serious illness of his parents.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Council of the European Union of 8 October 2008 and 8 December 2008 refusing the applications for special leave made by the Mr Angelo Sánchez;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009, p. 43.


title: Case C-517/03: Counterclaim submitted in the defence lodged on 17 July 2001 by the Commission in Case T-85/01 Società IAMA Consulting v Commission of the European Communities, pending before the Court of First Instance and referred to the Court of Justice on 2 December 2003 by order of 25 November 2003, as a matter of jurisdiction

text:
21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 47/19
Furthermore, there exists no provision of Spanish law which                Pleas in law and main arguments
demands that account should be taken of compliance by a
foreign private security firm, or by its staff, with the guarantees
and requirements imposed in another Member State. As a
result, those are measures which have the effect of discouraging           Under Article 23.3 of the contracts, the applicant before the
foreign undertakings that wish to carry on activities in Spain.            Court of First Instance, Società IAMA Consulting, is required
                                                                           to reimburse the Commission for any sums overpaid.
(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
    system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                                                                           Part of the Community contribution is attributable to
    on completion of professional education and training of at least       the expenses incurred by IAMA Consulting before 1 Novem-
    three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).                           ber 1997 (and not re-invoiced to IAMA International) in
(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general        a total amount of LIT 913 874 209, of which
    system for the recognition of professional education and training      LIT 576 432 631 related to the REGIS Project and
    to supplement Directive 89/48/EC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25).               LIT 337 441 578 to the REFIAG Project.
                                                                           The remainder derives from the amendments to expenditure,
                                                                           made during the audit, amounting to a total of
                                                                           LIT 185 531 657, of which LIT 60 603 671 related to the
                                                                           REGIS Project and LIT 124 927 986 to the REFIAG Project.
Counterclaim submitted in the defence lodged on 17 July
2001 by the Commission in Case T-85/01 Società IAMA
Consulting v Commission of the European Communities,
pending before the Court of First Instance and referred to
the Court of Justice on 2 December 2003 by order of
        25 November 2003, as a matter of jurisdiction                      Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Sweden
                           (Case C-517/03)
                                                                                (Case C-518/03)
                            (2004/C 47/30)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/31)
On 2 December 2003 the Court of First Instance, by order of
25 November 2003, referred to the Court of Justice a                       An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
counterclaim submitted by the Commission of the European                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Communities, represented by Eugenio de March and Alberto                   9 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
Dal Ferro, acting as Agents, in its defence in Case T-85/01                Communities, represented by K. Banks and K. Simonsson,
Società IAMA Consulting v Commission of the European                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Communities.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
                                                                                the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
—     Uphold its counterclaim and order Società IAMA Con-                        provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC (1)
      sulting to repay the sum of LIT 1 099 405 866                              of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
      (EUR 567 796) plus interest, in accordance with                            1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inven-
      Article 94 of Regulation No 341/93;                                        tions, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive; and
—     In any event order Società IAMA Consulting to pay the
      costs                                                                2.    order Sweden to pay the costs of the case.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 January 2000 in Case C-341/98 P: Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — European Social Fund — Decisions to reduce two amounts of Community assistance — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
29.4.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/5
(France), Loma SA, formerly SA Lomagenais, established at                 Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
Penne D’Agenais (France), and André Lompech, residing at                  of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
Penne D’Agenais (France), represented by Daniel Veyssiere, of             Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
the Agen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                Registrar, has made an order on 20 January 2000 in which it:
the Chambers of Aloise May, 31 Grand-Rue — appeal against
the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)                 1. Dismisses the appeal;
of 9 March 1999, Clauni and Others v Commission (Case
T-205/98, not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that             2. Orders Clauni SA, Loma SA and Messrs Bissières and Lompech
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                     to pay the costs.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot),
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de
Almeida, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, and                  (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 16 December 1999,
the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Clauni SA, Loma SA, Mr Bissières and Mr Lompech are ordered
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
    to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
                                                                          in Case C-341/98 P: Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvi-
                                                                          mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                    (Appeal — European Social Fund — Decisions to reduce
                                                                          two amounts of Community assistance — Appeal in part
                                                                           manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/09)
                       of 20 January 2000
in Case C-171/99 P: Clauni and Others v Commission of                                      (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case C-341/98 P: Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento
(Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part mani-                 de Recursos Humanos, ACE, established at Almada (Portugal),
                        festly unfounded)                                 represented by M. Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar — appeal
                                                                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities of 16 July 1998 in Case T-72/97
                         (2000/C 122/08)                                  Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
                                                                          Humanos, ACE v Commission [1998] ECR II-2847, seeking to
                                                                          have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                    (Language of the case: French)                        being Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          T. Figueira and K. Simonsson), the Court (Third Chamber),
                                                                          composed of J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
In Case C-171/99 P: Clauni SA, established at Le Passage                  Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges;
(France), Jean-Marie Bissières, residing at La Croix Blanche              G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
(France), Loma SA, formerly Lomagenais SA, established at                 order on 27 January 2000 in which it:
Penne d’Agenais (France) and André Lompech, residing at
Penne d’Agenais, represented by D. Veyssière, of the Agen Bar,            1. Dismisses the appeal;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of A. May, 31 Grand-rue, v Commission of the European                     2. Orders Proderec — Formaçao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
Communities (Agent: R. Tricot) — appeal against the judgment                  Humanos, ACE to pay the costs.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 1999 in Case T-206/98 Clauni
and Others v Commission, not yet published in the European                (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
Court Reports, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot), the Court (Third


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2002 in Case T-179/00: A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Council Directive 92/27/EEC — Labelling of a medicinal product — Centralised procedure for the authorisation of medicinal products — Inclusion of the local representative's logo in the blue box on the outer packaging of a medicinal product)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 202/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 14 May 2002                                                              of 3 July 2002
in Case T-81/00: Associação Comercial de Aveiro                           in Case T-179/00: A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)                         Riunite Srl v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(Social policy — European Social Fund — Application for
annulment — Reduction of financial assistance — State-                     (Council Directive 92/27/EEC — Labelling of a medicinal
       ment of reasons — Manifest error of assessment)                     product — Centralised procedure for the authorisation of
                                                                           medicinal products — Inclusion of the local representative’s
                                                                           logo in the blue box on the outer packaging of a medicinal
                                                                                product)
                          (2002/C 202/29)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/30)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-81/00, Associação Comercial de Aveiro, established
in Aveiro (Portugal), represented by J. Amaral e Almeida and
B. Diniz de Ayala, lawyers, with an address for service in                 In Case T-179/00, A. Menarini — Industrie Farmaceutiche
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                       Riunite Srl, established in Florence (Italy), represented by
(Agents: H. Speyart and M. França): Application for annulment              D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman, lawyers, with an address
of Commission Decision C(99) 3721 of 30 November 1999                      for service in Luxembourg, supported by European Federation
reducing the European Social Fund assistance granted in the                of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, established in
framework of project No 891038/P 3 to Associação Comercial                Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Anderson QC, J. Strat-
de Aveiro, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                    ford, Barrister, I. Dodds-Smith and A. Wearing, Solicitors, with
composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and              an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,           European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and
has given a judgment on 14 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                H. Støvlbæk): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision of 17 April 2000 rejecting the request by the applicant
                                                                           to include its logo in the blue box of the packaging of
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(96) 3721 of 30 November                 OPTRUMA, a pharmaceutical product registered under the
      1999 reducing the European Social Fund assistance granted to         centralised authorisation procedure, the Court of First Instance
      the Associação Comercial de Aveiro in the context of project        (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
      No 891038/P 3 in so far as it reduces the amount of the              and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
      services invoiced by SI — Sistemas de Informação Lda under          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2002, in
      subheading 14.3.9, hire and rental charges;                          which it:
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          1.    Annuls the Commission Decision of 17 April 2000 rejecting
                                                                                the applicant’s request to include its logo in the blue box of the
                                                                                packaging of OPTRUMA, a pharmaceutical product registered
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one                 under the centralised authorisation procedure;
      third of those incurred by the applicant;
                                                                           2.    Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
4.    Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs.                  the applicant and of the intervener.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.