title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) by order of that court of 19 November 1997 in the case of SA Régie Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA Maxicar and Orazio Formento (Case C-38/98)

text:
C 113/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.4.98
    the exercise of its discretion, an application by a              d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) of
    Turkish national to remain in its territory, is that             19 November 1997, which was received at the Court
    competent authority obliged to take into account the             Registry on 16 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    existence of the Agreement together with the                     the case of SA ReÂgie Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA
    additional Protocol?                                             Maxicar and Orazio Formento on the following questions:
5. If the answer to question No 4 is yes', is the
    competent authority in the Member State required to
    have regard to the principle of proportionality in               1. Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be
    exercising its discretion?                                           interpreted as precluding the holder of industrial or
                                                                         intellectual design rights in a Member State from
6. If the answer to question No 5 is yes', what factors                 asserting the corresponding exclusive right so as to
    are to be taken into account by the competent                        prevent third parties from manufacturing, selling and
    national authority in determining whether deportation                exporting to another Member State component parts
    is proportionate?                                                    which, taken as a whole, make up the bodywork of a
                                                                         car already on the market, that is to say, component
                                                                         parts intended to be sold as spare parts for that car?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma            2. Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be applied so as to
by order of that court of 6 October 1997 in the case of                  prohibit the abuse of the dominant position held by
            Kazemi Nava against Confcommercio                            each car manufacturer in the market for spare parts
                                                                         for cars of its manufacture, which consists in seeking
                        (Case C-11/98)                                   to eliminate any competition from independent
                         (98/C 113/18)                                   manufacturers of spare parts through the exercise of
                                                                         its industrial and intellectual design rights and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   attendant judicial penalties?
European Communities by order of the Pretura di Roma
(Rome Magistrate's Court) of 6 October 1997, which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 January 1998, for a             3. Is, therefore, a judgment handed down by a court of a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kazemi Nava against                    Member State to be considered contrary to public
Confcommercio on the following question.                                 policy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Brussels
                                                                         Convention if it recognises industrial or intellectual
Must the term employer' contained in Article 1 of
                                                                         design rights over such component parts which, taken
Directive 75/129/EEC (1) of 17 February 1975 be
                                                                         as a whole, make up the bodywork of a car and
understood as including non-profit-making organisations,
                                                                         affords protection to the holder of such purported
which act on behalf of their own members who are,
                                                                         exclusive rights by preventing third parties trading in
moreover, required periodically to pay a subscription, and
                                                                         another Member State from manufacturing, selling,
which represent and protect the interests of undertakings
                                                                         transporting, importing or exporting in that Member
and politicial, social, economic and trade union
                                                                         State such component parts which, taken as a whole,
organisations and serve to further the economic and social
                                                                         make up the bodywork of a car already on the
interests of undertakings: in other words, those
                                                                         market, or, in any event, by sanctioning such conduct?
organisations, such as Confcommercio, which may also be
defined as associations of trade unions in the light of the
objects set forth in their memoranda of association. If the
reply is in the affirmative, is the national court required to
disapply the concept of undertaking' as mentioned in Law
No 223/1991?
(1) OJ L 48, 22.7.1975, p. 29.
                                                                     Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-45/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) by order of
that court of 19 November 1997 in the case of SA ReÂgie
Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA Maxicar and Orazio               An action against the Council of the European Union was
                           Formento                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                        (Case C-38/98)                               Communities on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, abogado
                         (98/C 113/19)                               del Estado, of the State Legal Service responsible for
                                                                     representing the Spanish Government before the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Justice, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities by an order of the Corte                        Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2002 in Case T-36/01: Glaverbel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Design applied to the surface of goods — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Right to a hearing)

text:
21.12.2002              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/33
—      in Case T-330/00, for annulment of the decisions of                   composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
       16 March 2000 and 22 February 2000 of the authority                   A. W. H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
       empowered to conclude contracts not to accept the                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which
       respective candidatures of Mr Cocchi and Mrs Hainz for                it:
       the posts declared to be vacant by vacancy notices COM/
       R/5530/00 and COM/R/5500/00 respectively or, in the
                                                                             1.     Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
       alternative, annulment of those vacancy notices and for
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered
                                                                                Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R 278/2000-1);
       by the applicants;
—      in Case T-114/01, for annulment of the decisions of                   2.     Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
       appointment adopted by the authority empowered to
       conclude contracts under the recruitment procedures
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
       initiated by vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 and COM/
       R/5500/00 and for compensation in respect of the harn
       allegedly suffered by the applicants,
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas
and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 2002 in which                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
it:
                                                                                of 9 October 2002
1.     Dismisses the actions;
2.     Orders all the parties to bear their own costs.                       in Case T-36/01: Glaverbel v Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
( 1) OJ C 372, 23.12.2000, and C 227, 11.8.2001.
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                                                                             Design applied to the surface of goods — Absolute ground
                                                                               for refusal — Distinctive character — Right to a hearing)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/53)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                         of 9 October 2002
                                                                             In Case T-36/01, Glaverbel, established in Brussels (Belgium),
in Case T-360/00: Dart Industries Inc. v Office for Har-                     represented by S. Möbus, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation
monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                 (Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Schneider): Action brought against
                                                                             the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
(Community trade mark — ‘UltraPlus’ — Absolute grounds                       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
for refusal — Descriptive character, distinctive character —                 Designs) of 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-1), the
      Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                   Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij,
                                                                             Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                           (2002/C 323/52)                                   has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             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 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-
In Case T-360/00, Dart Industries Inc., established in Orlando,                     1);
Florida (United States of America), represented by J. Gray and
K.-U. Jonas, lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal             2.     Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: V. Melgar):                         by the applicant.
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R
278/2000-1) on the registration of ‘UltraPlus’ as a Community
trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),


title: Case C-363/06 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2006 by Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana against the order made on 5 July 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-357/05 Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/14

         Appeal brought on 6 September 2006 by Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana against the order made on 5 July 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-357/05 Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-363/06 P)
   (2006/C 261/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana (represented by: J. V. Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino, letrado, and C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the present case is admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2006;

               —

               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so that the application originally filed is declared admissible and the proceedings continued;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal is based on the following pleas in law:

               The Court of First Instance erred in law: it infringed the EC Treaty, in particular Article 19 of the Protocol annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community on the Statute of the Court of Justice (which, in accordance with Article 311 EC, forms an integral part thereof) which lays down the criteria governing the legal representation of the parties before the Community courts.

               It infringed essential procedural requirements by failing to grant the applicant a period in which to put the application in order, in breach of Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, misapplying Article 111 thereof to the present case and failing to hear the applicant before declaring the action inadmissible, in breach of the principle of the right to be heard which applies in all proceedings.

               It infringed the principle of non-discrimination by denying the legal representative (letrado) of the Generalidad Valenciana a right which has been undisputed in previous cases in respect of representatives who have appeared before the Community courts in that same capacity.


title: Case T-348/08: Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/44

         Action brought on 26 August 2008 — Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission
   (Case T-348/08)
   (2008/C 285/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aragonesas Industrias y Energía, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Forrester, K. Struckmann, P. Lindfelt, J. Garcia-Nieto Esteva, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission decision of 11 June 2008 — Case COMP/F/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate as far as it relates to Aragonesas; or

               —

               Amend Articles 1 and 2 of the decision to annul or substantially to reduce the fine imposed on Aragonesas; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate) relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA in so far as it relates to the applicant. Alternatively, it seeks the amendment of the Articles 1 and 2 of the decision in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims:
   First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal in finding that the applicant had participated in a cartel between late 1994 and 2000, allocating sales volumes and fixing prices for sodium chlorate. It claims that the level of evidence put forward by the Commission in the decision is insufficient to establish to the requisite legal standard the applicant's participation in a single continuous infringement.
   Second, the applicant argues that there has been an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that the Commission, in its calculation of the basic amount of the fine:

               —

               wrongly assessed the gravity of the infringement with regard to the applicant;

               —

               wrongly applied the entry fee to the applicant;

               —

               failed to properly assess the duration of the infringement; and

               —

               failed to take account of the mitigating circumstances specific to the applicant.


title: Case C-155/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of 29 March 2001 of that court in the case of Cookies World Vertriebsges. m.b.H. i.L. v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Tirol

text:
C 200/38                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.7.2001
for service in Luxembourg — appeal against the order of the                (3) In the assessment of the distinctive character of a specific
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third                        colour as a trade mark, must account be taken of whether,
Chamber) of 11 July 2000 in Case T-268/99 Fédération                              with regard to that colour, there is a general interest in
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France and                      availability, such as can exist in respect of signs which
Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2893, seeking to have that                         denote a geographical origin?
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
Council of the European Union (Agents F. Anton and                         (4) When considering the question whether a sign, for which
J. Monteiro), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of A. La                        registration as a trade mark is sought, possesses the
Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward                     distinctive character referred to at the beginning of Article
(Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges,                          3(1) and in Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive, must the BMB
Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl, R. Grass, Registrar, made an                     confine itself to an assessment in abstracto of distinctive
order on 10 May 2001, the operative part of which is as                           character or must it take account of all the actual facts of
follows:                                                                          the case, including the use made of the sign and the
                                                                                manner in which the sign is used?
1.   The appeal is dismissed.
2.   It is unnecessary to give a decision on the applications for leave
     to intervene.                                                         (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
3.   Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de
     France (FNAB), Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
     Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB)
     and Est Distribution Biogam Sàrl are to pay the costs.
4.   CLESA SA, Danone SA and Compagnie Gervais Danone SA
     are to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                           richtshof by order of 29 March 2001 of that court in
                                                                           the case of Cookies World Vertriebsges. m.b.H. i.L. v
                                                                                Finanzlandesdirektion fur Tirol
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad,
Netherlands, by order of that court of 23 February 2001                                              (Case C-155/01)
in the case of Libertel Groep B.V. against Benelux-
                          Merkenbureau
                                                                                (2001/C 200/70)
                         (Case C-104/01)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2001/C 200/69)                                   European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
                                                                           of (Higher Administrative Court) of 29 March 2001, received
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     at the Court Registry on 11 April 2001, for a preliminary
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad (High                       ruling in the case of Cookies World Vertriebsges. m.b.H. i.L. v
Court), Netherlands, of 23 February 2001, received at the                  Finanzlandesdirektion fur Tirol on the following question:
Court Registry on 5 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Libertel Groep B.V. against Benelux-Merkenbureau
on the following questions:                                                Is it compatible with the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
(1) Is it possible for a single specific colour which is                   of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the
     represented as such or is designated by an internationally            Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
     applied body of rules to acquire a distinctive character for          of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in particular
     certain goods or services within the meaning of the                   Articles 5 and 6 thereof, for a Member State to treat the
     opening words of Article 3(1) and of Article 3(b) of                  following event as a taxable transaction: the incurring of
     Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1)?                 expenditure relating to services supplied abroad that, if they
                                                                           had been supplied within the national territory to the trader,
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:             would not entitle the trader to a deduction of input tax?
     (a)    in what circumstances may it be accepted that a
            single specific colour possesses a distinctive charac-
            ter in the sense used above?                                   (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
     (b) does it make any difference if registration is sought
            for a wide range of goods and/or services, rather
            than for a specific product or service, or category of
            goods or services respectively?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-361/04 P: Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso, Bernard Ruiz-Picasso v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark PICARO — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark PICASSO)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-361/04 P: Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso, Bernard Ruiz-Picasso v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark PICARO - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark PICASSO)
   (2006/C 60/15)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-361/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 18 August 2004, by Claude Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Paris (France), Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, residing in London (United Kingdom), Maya Widmaier-Picasso, residing in Paris, Marina Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Geneva (Switzerland), Bernard Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Paris, (represented by C. Gielen, advocaat), the other parties to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and A. von Mühlendahl), defendant at first instance, and DaimlerChrysler AG (represented by S. Völker, Rechtsanwalt), intervener at first instance — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Lenaerts and E. Juhász, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Mrs Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Mrs Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Mrs Marina Ruiz-Picasso and Mr Bernard Ruiz-Picasso to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-58/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Nabipour and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Restrictions on admission — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of assessment — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Nabipour and Others v Council
   (Case T-58/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on admission - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law - Error of assessment - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)
   2014/C 39/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ghasem Nabipour (Tehran, Iran), Mansour Eslami (Madliena, Malta), Mohamad Talai (Hamburg, Germany), Mohammad Moghaddami Fard (Tehran), Alireza Ghezelayagh (Singapore, Singapore), Gholam Hossein Golparvar (Tehran), Hassan Jalil Zadeh (Tehran), Mohammad Hadi Pajand (London, United Kingdom), Ahmad Sarkandi (Al Jaddaf, Dubai, United Arab Emirates), Seyed Alaeddin Sadat Rasool (Tehran), and Ahmad Tafazoly (Shanghai, China) (represented by: S. Kentridge QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès, A. Varnav and A. De Elera, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicants, and, secondly, of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10), in so far as that decision concerns the fourth and ninth applicants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed the names of Mr Ghasem Nabipour, Mr Mansour Eslami, Mr Mohamad Talai, Mr Mohammad Moghaddami Fard, Mr Alireza Ghezelayagh, Mr Gholam Hossein Golparvar, Mr Hassan Jalil Zadeh, Mr Mohammad Hadi Pajand, Mr Ahmad Sarkandi, Mr Seyed Alaeddin Sadat Rasool and Mr Ahmad Tafazoly in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed the names of Mr Nabipour, Mr Eslami, Mr Talai, Mr Fard, Mr Ghezelayagh, Mr Golparvar, Mr Zadeh, Mr Pajand, Mr Sarkandi, Mr Sadat Rasool and Mr Tafazoly in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

               3.

               Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, in so far as it concerns Mr Nabipour, Mr Eslami, Mr Talai, Mr Fard, Mr Ghezelayagh, Mr Golparvar, Mr Zadeh, Mr Pajand, Mr Sarkandi, Mr Sadat Rasool and Mr Tafazoly;

               4.

               Annuls Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413 in so far as it concerns Mr Fard and Mr Sarkandi;

               5.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2011/783 and of Decision 2013/270 to be maintained as regards Mr Nabipour, Mr Eslami, Mr Talai, Mr Fard, Mr Ghezelayagh, Mr Golparvar, Mr Zadeh, Mr Pajand, Mr Sarkandi, Mr Sadat Rasool and Mr Tafazoly from their entry into force until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               6.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               7.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Nabipour, Mr Eslami, Mr Talai, Mr Fard, Mr Ghezelayagh, Mr Golparvar, Mr Zadeh, Mr Pajand, Mr Sarkandi, Mr Sadat Rasool and Mr Tafazoly.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Société Générale against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-32/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/31
Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Crédit Lyonnais                    Third, there has been a breach of essential procedural rules,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  in that the defendant institution relied on the confidentiality
                         ( Case T-31 /96 )                            of business secrets in order to justify the omissions in both
                                                                      the reasoning and the enacting terms of its decision .
                           ( 96/C 133/64 )
                                                                      According to the applicant, the interest which it has in
                                                                      knowing what commitments are to be fulfilled as a
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                        condition of the decision cannot be affected by the
                                                                      confidentiality of business secrets .
An action against the Commission of the European                      Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     of the EC Treaty and a manifest error of assessment,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1996                 inasmuch as the Commission regarded the reductions in
by Crédit Lyonnais , established in Paris, represented by             assets envisaged in the business plan communicated by the
Claude Lazarus, Chantai Momège and Jean-Pierre Jouyet,                French State to the Coimmission as inadequate and
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           demanded the sale of further assets . The applicant criticizes
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                         the Commission in that regard for its failure to take into
                                                                      consideration either the securization measures taken to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          reduce its assets or the fact that the business plan involved a
                                                                      significant and adequate programme for the sale of banking
— annul Article 2 ( c ) of Decision 95/547/EC ,                       subsidiaries . It points out in that regard that the aid in issue
                                                                      is to be applied solely for the purposes of stabilizing the
                                                                      financial situation of the Crédit Lyonnais and that, in any
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                      event, the banking sector cannot be treated in the same way
                                                                      as a sector in which there is excessive structural production
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       capacity.
The applicant, a French bank in receipt of State aid, contests
the decision of the Commission attaching certain conditions
to the grant of the aid, and requiring in particular a
reduction in its commercial capacity by means of a cut of at
least 35 % in its commercial operations abroad, including             Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Société Générale
its European banking network, by the end of 1998 in                     against the Commission of the European Communities
accordance with the commitments given by France in that                                        ( Case T-32/96 )
regard .
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/65 )
The applicant maintains, first, that the contested decision
disregarded the fundamental principle of the right to a fair                          (Language of the case: French)
hearing, inasmuch as the applicant was never informed of,
nor heard in connection with, the additional commitments              An action against the Commission of the European
which the Commission required it to give , notwithstanding            Communities was brought before the Court of First
that those commitments were in fact given by the French               Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1996
State and the Commission made its decision conditional
                                                                      by Société Générale, established in Paris, represented by
on compliance with them . Furthermore , the documents                 Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
communicated by third party competitors, which were sent              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen,
to the Commission and played a decisive part in justifying            67 Rue Ermesinde .
those additional requirements, were not brought to its
knowledge either . The applicant emphasizes in that regard
that the right to a fair hearing must be respected in State aid       The applicant claims that the Court should :
proceedings , not only for the benefit of the person to whom
the decision is addressed but also for the benefit of the             — annul in its entirety the Commission Decision of 26 July
undertaking receiving the aid; and that it was all the more               1995 giving conditional approval to the aid granted by
necessary to respect that right since the commitments given               France to the bank Crédit Lyonnais,
by France are of crucial importance in the present case and
the    Commission     has     a wide discretion   in  State aid       — order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
matters .                                                                 expenses incurred as a result of the present case .
The applicant pleads , second, breaches of the principle of           Pleas in law and main arguments
legal certainty and of the obligation imposed by Article 190
of the Treaty to provide a statement of reasons, in that              The applicant, one of the main competitors of the Crédit
the Commission has neither provided details of the                    Lyonnais and one of the banks most affected by the aid
commitments given by the French State nor justified the               granted by the French Government to the abovementioned
procedure to be followed in order to comply with the                  publicly owned bank, seeks the annulment of the
commitments described in Article 2 ( c ) of the contested             Commission's decision declaring that aid compatible with
decision .                                                            the common market. It argues that:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4 . 5 . 96
 1 , in adopting its decision, the Commission breached the              represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
     essential procedural requirements of the EC Treaty, of             Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
     the legislation implementing it and of the fundamental             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
     rules of procedure provided for therein, in that:                  Fort Rheinsheim .
     — it did not declare the aids granted to the Crédit
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
         Lyonnais in 1994 and 1995 illegal for want of
         notification,                                                  — annul the decision of the Disciplinary Board of
     — the summary nature of the advance notice given by it                 7 December 1 995 ,
         was such that third parties were not given an
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
         opportunity to intervene, as appropriate, in the
         procedure for the examination of those aids;                   Pleas in law and main arguments
2 , the Commission infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the EC               The applicant, who is already contesting the decision
     Treaty and the Community guidelines on State aid for               suspending him under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations
     rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty issued for          and the decision to bring the matter before the Disciplinary
     the implementation thereof, in that:                               Board ( ! ), is applying in the present case for annulment of
     — it declared the aid compatible with the common                   the opinion delivered by the Board in the context of the
         market, notwithstanding that that aid does not                 disciplinary proceedings initiated on 6 September 1995 .
         contribute to the development of any sector of
         activity,                                                      In support of his application, he relies on the following
                                                                        pleas:
     — it    did   not    take   the    common       interest  into
         consideration,                                                 1 , the report of the appointing authority, whereby the
                                                                            matter was brought before the Disciplinary Board
     — it based its analysis of the compatibility of the aid                pursuant to Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff
         under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) on the cost of that aid to the         Regulations, is improper, since it characterizes, that is to
         State and not on the amount of aid actually received               say, prejudges, the conduct alleged against the applicant,
         by the Crédit Lyonnais,                                            alleges as facts matters which have not been proven,
     — it did not seek any sound independent expert's                       contains allegations of fact which are manifestly
         report for the purposes of quantifying the amount of               incorrect, fails properly to provide a clear indication of
         the aid,                                                           the matters complained of and the circumstances in
                                                                            which they were allegedly committed, makes findings of
     — it committed a manifest error of assessment in                       fact in respect of matters on which the applicant has not
         quantifying the amount of the aid in a sum exceeding               been heard and, lastly, expatiates on the complaints set
         FF 32 billion, when that sum constitutes in itself the             out in the decision of 6 September 1995 ;
         largest sum ever granted by way of State aid,
                                                                        2 , the chairman of the Disciplinary Board did not appoint
     — it failed properly to assess the proportionality of the              one of its members to prepare a general report on the
         aid to the cost and advantages arising from the                    matter ;
         recovery of the Crédit Lyonnais,
                                                                        3 , the applicant was not advised of the hearing of witnesses
     — it declared the aid compatible notwithstanding that                  and did not receive the minutes of that hearing in good
         no restructuring plan was provided and the measures                time ;
         which the Commission required the Crédit Lyonnais
         to take cannot in any way be described as                     4 , the chairman took part in the deliberations of the
                                                                            Disciplinary Board;
         restructuring measures,
                                                                        5 , the opinion disregards the limits on the jurisdiction of
     — it did not propose any adequate counter-measures to
                                                                            the Disciplinary Board, breaches the right to a fair
         remedy the serious distortion of competition
                                                                            hearing and ignores the principle that proceedings
         resulting from the aid .
                                                                            should be conducted inter partes;
                                                                       6 , the opinion is insufficiently reasoned and breaches the
                                                                            conditions governing the application of Articles 11 , 12
                                                                            and 17 of the Staff Regulations, alternatively, is based
Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Bernard Connolly                         on an unlawful interpretation of those provisions;
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   7, in the alternative, the disciplinary measure proposed
                        ( Case T-34/96 )                                    by the Disciplinary Board breaches the principle of
                          ( 96/C 133/66 )                                   proportionality and is vitiated by a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment ;
                (Language of the case: French)                          8 , the proceedings are characterized in their entirety by a
                                                                            misuse of powers.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') Case T-203/95 ( OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p. 16 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1 996
by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),


title: Case T-334/10: Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/45

      Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System)
      (Case T-334/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/87)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 May 2010 in joined Cases R 924/2009-1 and R 1013/2009-1;

                  —

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

                  —

                  In the event that Vermop Salmon intervenes in the proceedings, order the intervener to bear its own costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Twist System’ for goods in Classes 7, 8 and 21

         Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

         Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Vermop Salmon GmbH

         Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the word mark ‘TWIX’ for goods in Class 21 and the word mark ‘TWIXTER’ for goods in Classes 9, 12, 21, 22 and 25

         Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was partially upheld

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Vermop Salmon’s appeal to have the applicant’s mark declared invalid in respect of additional goods was upheld and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the First Board of Appeal of OHIM did not examine whether the evidence of use put forward by Vermop Salmon is sufficient to prove genuine use of the earlier Community trade marks; infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 57(2) in conjunction with Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the evidence of use which Vermop Salmon placed on the case-file does not prove genuine use of the earlier Community trade marks; and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the marks at issue are not similar.

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


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt by order of that body of 15 May 1997 in the review proceedings brought by the applicant, HDM Flugservice GmbH v. Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger, contract-awarding body (Case C-223/97)

text:
No C 228/ 12          EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 7. 97
     in a position which it itself could not take up without                    pursuant to a legal obligation to pay an amount
     infringing Article 86, whilst, as a result, a system of                    determined by a civil-law contract for valuable
     undistorted competition is not invariably guaranteed ?                     consideration ?
( f) If such compulsory affiliation is contrary to                      2.      Is that structuring of service relationships permissible
     Community law, does that mean that it is not legally                       in the light of Article 3 ( f), Article 5 or other
     valid ?                                                                    provisions of the EC Treaty, if competition on a .
                                                                                relevant market is thereby precluded for a long
                                                                                period, and where for the provisions of the service
                                                                                no service monopolies expressly provided for by law
                                                                                exist ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste                       3.      May an individual derive, from the abovementioned
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 27 May 1997 in the                        or other provisions of Council Directive 89/665/EEC
land register case brought by Manfred Trummer and Dr                            on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
                           Peter Mayer                                          administrative provisions relating to the application
                       ( Case C-222/97 )                                        of review procedures to the award of public supply
                         ( 97/C 228/24 )                                        and public works contracts, a specific right to have
                                                                                review proceedings conducted before authorities or
                                                                                courts which comply with the provisions of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          Article 2 ( 8 ) of Directive 89/665/EEC (2 ) which right
European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichts                          is so sufficiently precise and specific that, in the
hof ( Austrian Supreme Court) of 27 May 1997, which                             event of non-transposition of the Directive in
was received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1997, for a                       question by the Member State, an individual may
preliminary ruling in the land register case brought by                         successfully assert that legal right against that
Manfred Trummer and Dr Peter Mayer on the following                             Member State in legal proceedings ?
question:
                                                                        4.      In conducting a review procedure on the basis of an
Does the refusal to allow a mortgage to be created to                           individual's right, founded on Article 41 of Directive
cover an existing foreign-currency debt ( in this case in                       92/50/EEC in conjunction with Directive 89/665/
German marks ( DM )) constitute a restriction on the                            EEC, to the conduct of a review procedure, must a
movement of capital and payments compatible with                                national court, analogous to the Federal Procurement
Article 73b of the EC Treaty ?                                                  Office, refuse to take cognizance of provisions of
                                                                                national law such as Section 91 (2 ) ( 3 ) BVergG,
                                                                                which confer on the Federal Procurement Office
                                                                                powers of review only in the case of infringements of
                                                                                the Federal Procurement law and regulations
                                                                                adopted thereunder, on the ground that those
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga                        provisions preclude a review procedure from being
beamt by order of that body of 15 May 1997 in the                               conducted under the Federal Procurement Law for
review proceedings brought by the applicant, HDM Flug                          awards of contracts for services, and must such a
service GmbH v. Hauptverband der osterreichischen                               national court conduct a review procedure in
      Sozialversicherungstrager, contract-awarding body                         accordance with the fourth part of the Federal
                       ( Case C-223 /97 )                                       Procurement Law ?
                         ( 97/C 228/25 )
                                                                        5 ( a ) Are the services mentioned in the facts of this case to
                                                                                be classified (with reference to Article 10 of Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          92/50/EEC ) as services coming under Annex I (A) to
European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabe                          the aformentioned Directive ( Category 3 — Air
amt ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 15 May 1997, which                        transport services of freight and passengers ) and
was received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1997, for a                       contracts    for such    services are  therefore   to  be
preliminary ruling in the review proceedings brought by                         awarded in accordance with the provisions of Titles
the applicant, HDM Flugservice GmbH v. Hauptverband                             III and IV of the Directive, or are they to be
der osterreichischen Sozialversicherungstrager, contract                       classified as services under Annex I ( B ) to the
awarding body, on the following questions :                                     Directive ( Health ) with the result that contracts for
                                                                                such services are to be awarded in accordance with
1.     Can a legal relationship, such as that in the main                       the provisions of Articles 13 and 14, or do those
       proceedings, be deemed to be a contract satisfying                       services fall outside the sphere of application of
       the criteria in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Directive 92/50/                Directive 92/50/EEC ?
       CEE (') where, under that relationship, a public
       authority is obliged, on the basis of a State                    5 ( b ) Do the provisions of Articles 1 to 7 of Directive 92/
       agreement at private law providing for no                                50/EEC satisfy the preconditions laid down in the
       remuneration to provide services for remuneration ,                      Van Duyn judgment ( 3 ) on the direct applicability of
       whereby that remuneration is payable by a third                          a Community Directive, with the result that services
       party, also a public contract-awarding body,                             coming under Annex I ( B ) to the Directive are to be
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 7 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 228/ 13
        awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements
        are the provisions of the Directive relevant to the                 rechtbank, Maastricht, by judgment of that court of
        services mentioned in Annex I ( A ) capable of                      13 June 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Johannes
        fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the                                               Martinus Lemmens
        abovementioned case ?                                                                         ( Case C-226/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/27)
6.      Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the
        EEC Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        obligation on the State to interfere in existing legal              European Communities by judgment of the Arrondisse
        situations concluded for an indefinite period or for                mentsrechtbank ( District Court), Maastricht, of 13 June
        several years but which were not entered into in                    1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 June
        accordance with the abovementioned Directive .                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                            against Johannes Martinus Lemmens on the following
(') OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992, p . 1 .                                     questions :
( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
(■') Case 41 /74 [ 1974 ] ECR 1337.                                         1 . Can a defendant in criminal proceedings instituted for
                                                                                an offence contrary to Article 8 (2 ) ( a ) of the Wegen
                                                                                verkeerswet ( Road Traffic Law) 1994 successfully rely
                                                                                on the application of the Regeling Ademanalyse
                                                                                ( Regulation on breath analysis ) ( Ned.Stcrt 1987, 187),
                                                                                as amended, laying down further rules concerning the
                                                                                requirements for breath-analysis apparatus and the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs                         tests which such apparatus must undergo, being set
gerichtshof, by order of that court of 26 May 1997, in the                       aside
               case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vorarlberg
                           ( Case C-224/97 )                                     — where, for the purposes of the investigation
                                                                                referred to in Article 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the Wegenverkeer
                             ( 97/C 228/26 )                                          swet 1994, that Regulation is based, pursuant to
                                                                                Article 65 of the Invoeringswet Wegenverkeerswet
                                                                                ( Law implementing the Road Traffic Law) 1994,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                on Article 163 of the Wegenverkeerswet viewed in
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge                                   conjunction with Article 5 of the Besluit Alcoho
richtshof (Administrative Court of Appeal ) of 26 May                                 londerzoeken ( Decree on the conduct of tests to
 1997, received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1997, for                            determine alcohol level ) ( Stb . 1987, 432 ), as
a preliminary ruling in the case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vor                          amended,
arlberg on the following questions :                                             — in view of the failure to notify the Regulation to
                                                                                the European Commission, as required by Article 8
                                                                                of Directive 83/189/EEC O ?
 1 . Are the provisions concerning the freedom to provide
       services to be interpreted as precluding a Member
                                                                             2 . Should a court in criminal proceedings of the kind
       State from prohibiting the operator of a yachting
       harbour, on pain of criminal prosecution, from hiring
                                                                                referred to above disapply that Regulation of its own
                                                                                motion on account of the failure to notify it as
       out more than a specific quota of moorings to boat
       owners who are resident in another Member State ?                         required ?
                                                                             (') OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
 2 . Does Community law, in particular the provisions
       concerning the freedom to provide services in
       conjunction with Article 5 of the EC Treaty and
       Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of
       accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                 Action brought on 18 June 1997 by the Commission
       Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
       adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                                                       Republic
       Union is founded ( OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994, p. 21 ;
       OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995, p. 1 ), give the provider of the                                       ( Case C-227/97)
       services referred to in question 1 above, who is                                                    ( 97/C 228/28 )
       resident in Austria, the right to assert that the
       prohibition issued in the terms set out in question 1 in
       an administrative decision ( Bescheid) adopted in 1990                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
       in regard to a specific person should not be applied in               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
       decisions    of the      Austrian      courts and    authorities      on 18 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
       adopted after 1 January 1995 ?                                        Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                             of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2002 in Case T-316/00: Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Colours (green and grey) — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
7.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 305/21
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Verryck, residing in Brussels, Françoise Leroy, residing in
                                                                           Villers-la-Ville (Belgium), Petra Schlueter, residing in Overijse
                      of 25 September 2002                                 (Belgium), Lucia Talluto, residing in Brussels, Sandrine Tauber,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, Jacqueline White, residing in Brussels,
                                                                           Anne-Christine Ranglaret-Clément, residing in Brussels, Francy
in Case T-316/00: Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH v Office                       Arnalsteen, residing in Genval (Belgium), Georges Anagnostar-
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks
                                                                           as, residing in Brussels, Jean-Pierre Dupriez, residing in Berloz
                     and Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           (Belgium), François Jurquet, residing in Brussels, Christian Eloy,
                                                                           residing in Waterloo (Belgium), Jean-Pierre Kanyinda, residing
(Community trade mark — Colours (green and grey) —                         in Zellik (Belgium), Bernard Lion, residing in Brussels, Renato
Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character —                      Stella, residing in Brussels, Gérard Van Neylen, residing in
          Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                     Brussels, represented initially by A. Evrard and A. Colson, then
                                                                           by A. Colson and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, lawyers, with an
                          (2002/C 305/44)                                  address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: initially, E. Tserepa
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Lacombe and D. Martin; then, D. Martin and F. Clotuche-
                                                                           Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision to refuse to appoint the applicants as established
                                                                           officials or to offer them contracts as members of the
In Case T-316/00, Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH, established                   temporary staff for an indefinite term and for compensation
in Kufstein (Austria), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office          of the damage suffered as a result of that decision — the Court
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                  of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly and                    President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; Registrar: D. Chris-
S. Bonne): Action brought against the decision of the First                tensen, Administrator, gave a judgment on 26 September
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the                     2002, in which it:
Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2000
(Case R 558/1999-1) refusing registration of a juxtaposition               1.     Dismissed the action
of the colours green and grey as a Community trade mark, the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                     2.     Ordered each of the parties to pay his or her own costs.
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Pling-
ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           (1 ) OJ No C 372 of 23 December 2000.
25 September 2002, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                                of 11 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-89/01: Claude Willeme v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Obligations under the Staff Regulations —
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Declaration of spouse’s occupation — Personal interest
                                                                           likely to compromise independence — Obligation relating to
                      of 26 September 2002                                 personal dignity — Obligation to act in the interest of the
                                                                           Communities — Duty of loyalty — Disciplinary proceedings
in Case T-319/00: Chantal Borremans and Others v                           — Non-contractual liability — Assessment of non-material
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                                                      damage)
(Officials — Former agents of the European Association for                                           (2002/C 305/46)
Cooperation — Refusal to appoint as established officials —
           Action for annulment and compensation)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                          (2002/C 305/45)
                                                                           In Case T-89/01: Claude Willeme, an official of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                         mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                           represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
In Case T-319/00: Chantal Borremans, residing in Brussels,                 D. Waelbroeck) — application for first, annulment of the
Annick Duez, residing in Baudour (Belgium), Ariane Dutrieux-               decision of 19 June 2000 downgrading the applicant from


title: Case C-237/06 P: Appeal brought on  28 May 2006  by Guido Strack against the order made on  22 March 2006  by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-4/05, Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/23

         Appeal brought on 28 May 2006 by Guido Strack against the order made on 22 March 2006 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-4/05, Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-237/06 P)
   (2006/C 165/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (represented by: L. Füllkrug, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities
                   (1)

               —

               Annul the decision of 5 February 2004 to close the OLAF investigation number OF/2002/0356 and the final case report (NT/sr D(2003)-AC-19723-01687 of 5 February 2004) on which that decision was based

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance made procedural errors and infringed the rule of Community law in Article 3(3) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. The Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction at the time the order was made as it should already have referred Case T-4/05 to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in December 2005 on the basis of the abovementioned provision.
   Furthermore, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in procedure as it did not substantiate the contested order with reference to a number of independent grounds on which the action was based.
   Moreover, the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by wrongly interpreting the concept of ‘an act adversely affecting him’ which is used in Article 90(2) and 90a of the Staff Regulations. It did this by wrongly interpreting the concept itself and not taking into consideration previous case-law, wrongly interpreting the rules in Articles 22a, 22b and 43 of the Staff Regulations, the fundamental right to physical and mental integrity and the principle of effective judicial protection, and by misjudging the nature of claims for damages.
   Lastly, the appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance made procedural errors, which are apparent from the case-file due to incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect legal assessment of the facts as regards the OLAF investigations, and also the illogical presentation thereof in the statement of reasons in the order.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.05.2006, p. 12


title: Case C-500/15 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2015 by TVR Italia Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in TVR Automotive v OHIM — TVR Italia (Case T-398/13)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/2

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2015 by TVR Italia Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in TVR Automotive v OHIM — TVR Italia (Case T-398/13)
   (Case C-500/15 P)
   (2016/C 090/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: TVR Italia Srl (represented by: F. Caricato, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: TVR Automotive Ltd and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
   By order of 14 January 2016 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-573/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Measures transposing the directive)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-573/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Measures transposing the directive)
   2010/C 246/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and G. Fiengo, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Incorrect transposition — Derogations — Requirements

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to transpose Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds, into Italian law in a manner which is wholly in compliance with that directive, and by failing to transpose Article 9 of that directive in a manner which ensures that the derogations adopted by the competent Italian authorities comply with the conditions and requirements referred to in that article, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 18 of the directive;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 March 1997 in Case T-25/96: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Contested decision withdrawn in the course of proceedings - No need to give a decision)

text:
28 . 6 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 199/23
under Article 3 (2 ) of Council Regulation No 17 of                  Drijber), supported by Cooperatieve Vereniging De Ver
6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing                       enigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer (VBA ) BA, established
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ, English Special               in Aalsmeer, represented by G. van der Wal, a lawyer with
Edition 1959-62, p. 87 ) — the Court of First Instance               right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden,
( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and                      Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue — application for
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,                      the annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            Commission's letter of 20 December 1993 relating to
14 May 1997, in which it:                                            Cases IV/32.751 — Florimex/Aalsmeer II, IV/32.990 —
                                                                     VGB/Aalsmeer, IV/33.190 — Inkoop Service and M. Ver
                                                                     haar BV/Aalsmeer, IV/32.835 — Cultra and IV/33.624 —
1 . annuls the Commission decision notified to the                   Bloemveilingen Aalsmeer III — the Court of First Instance
     applicants by letter SG(92)D/8782 of 2 July 1992;               ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed
                                                                     of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and
                                                                     A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
2.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     pay the applicants ' costs;                                     14 May 1997, in which it:
                                                                     1.   annuls the Commission 's decision contained in its
3 . orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay                letter of 20 December 1993 concerning Cases IV/
     the costs incurred by the applicants as a result of its              32.751 — Florimex/Aalsmeer II, IV/32.990 — VGB/
     intervention .
                                                                          Aalsmeer, IV/33.190 — Inkoop Service and M. Ver
                                                                          haar BV/Aalsmeer, IV/32.835 — Cultra and IV/33.624
(') OJ No C 278 , 27. 10 . 1992 .                                         — Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer III to the extent to
                                                                          which it rejects the applicants ' complaints that the
                                                                          intervener's type I, II and III trade agreements infringe
                                                                          Article 85 (1 ) of the Treaty;
                                                                     2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                       of 14 May 1997
in Case T-77/94: Vereniging van Groothandelaren in                   O OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
Bloemkwekerijprodukten and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities ( ] )
(Competition — Closure of procedure on a complaint in
the absence of a response by the complainants within the
time-limit notified to them — Compatibility with                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Article 85 (1 ) of the EC Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers
who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of                      ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
floricultural products to undertakings established on the                                   of 14 March 1997
premises of a cooperative auction society — Compatibility
with Article 85 (1 ) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive                in Case T-25/96: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt
purchase obligation accepted by certain wholesalers                  Unternehmen and Others v. Commission of the European
reselling such products to retailers in a specific trading                                    Communities ( ] )
area forming part of the same premises — Discrimination              (Action for annulment — Contested decision withdrawn
— Effect on trade between Member States — Assessment
                                                                     in the course of proceedings — No need to give a
by reference to a body of rules taken as a whole — Lack                                            decision)
                     of appreciable effect)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/65 )
                          ( 97/C 199/64 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     In Case T-25/96 : Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt
                                                                     Unternehmen, established in Bonn, composed of the
In Case T-77/94 : Vereniging van Groothandelaren in                  following: — Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH & Co Luftver
Bloemkwekerijprodukten, Florimex BV, Inkoop Service                  kehrs-KG, having its registered office in Oberursel
Aalsmeer BV and M. Verhaar BV, established in Aalsmeer               ( Germany ), — Air Berlin GmbH & Co Luftverkehrs-KG,
( Netherlands ), represented by J. A. M. P. Keijser, of the          having its registered office in Berlin ( Germany), — Condor
Nijmegen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              Flugdienst GmbH, having its registered office in Kelster
care of Stanbrook and Hooper, at the Chambers of A.                  bach ( Germany ), — Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,
Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la Foire, against                       having its registered office in Berlin ( Germany), — Hapag
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: B. J.                Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH, having its registered office in
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/24             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
Langenhagen ( Germany ), — LTU Lufttransport Unterneh                 1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
men GmbH & Co KG, having its registered office in
Düsseldorf ( Germany ) and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft                2.   The costs are reserved.
mbH, having its registered office in Langenhagen
( Germany ), in its own behalf, represented by Gerrit
Schohe and Philipp von Dietze, Rechtsanwälte in Ham
burg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marc Baden, 24, rue Marie-Adelaide, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Anders Jessen, Paul Nemitz and Georg M. Berrisch ) —
                                                                                of 2 May 1997
application for the annulment of Decision C(95 ) 3319
final of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning                 in Case T-90/96: Automobiles Peugeot SA v. Commission
fiscal aid in the field of depreciation favouring German                             of the European Communities ( ] )
undertakings — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                    (Competition — Action for annulment — Objection of
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of K.                                                  inadmissibility)
Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and M.
Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                                             { 97/C 199/67)
 14 March 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                       In Case T-90/96 : Automobiles Peugeot SA, established in
1 . The Commission shall pay all the costs.                            Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 (') OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                     Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe, v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities ( Agents: initially, Francisco
                                                                       Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Guy Charrier and,
                                                                       subsequently, Guy Charrier alone ) — application for
                                                                       annulment of four letters from the Commission dated 3
                                                                        and 22 April 1996 purporting to reject requests by the
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                 applicant that confidential treatment be accorded to
            OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             certain information supplied to the Commission in the
                         of 21 March 1997                              context of Article 11 of Regulation No 17 of the Council
                                                                        of 6 February 1962 : First Regulation implementing
 in Case T-79/96 R: CAMAR S.r.l . v. Commission of the                  Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( OJ, English Special
                     European Communities                               Edition 1956-1962, p. 87) — the Court of First Instance
  (Organization of the common market — Bananas —                        ( Second Chamber ), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President,
 Application for interim measures — Request for delivery                and A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
                       of import certificates)                          Registrar, made an order on 2 May 1997, the operative
                                                                        part of which is as follows:
                             97/C 199/66 )
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
 In Case T-79/96 R: CAMAR S.r.l ., established in Florence,             2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
 represented by Wilma Viscadini Dona, Mariano Paolin
  and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar, with an address                 O OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
  Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt, supported by Italian
  Republic ( Agents: Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio
  Ferri ), against Commission of the European Communities
  (Agent: Eugenio de March ), supported by French Republic
  ( Agents : Frederic Pascal and Catherine de Salins ) —                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  application brought under Article 186 of the EC Treaty                                       (Third Chamber)
  requesting the President of the Court of First Instance to                                  of 26 March 1997
  order the Commission to deliver to Camar, in respect of
  1997, certificates for the importation of bananas from                       in Case T-l 19/96: X v. European Parliament (')
  third countries and non-traditional ACP countries, for a               (Officials — Action for annulment — Prior administrative
  quantity equal to the difference between the quantity of                         complaint — Objection on admissibility)
  Somalian bananas which it may import and that which it
  imported during 1988 , 1989 and 1990 and, in the                                                 ( 97/C 199/68 )
  alternative, for all other measures which it may consider
  appropriate to prevent Camar from suffering irreparable                               (Language of the case: French)
  harm before judgment is delivered in the main proceedings
  — the President of the Court of First Instance made an                 In Case T-l 19/96 : X, official of the European Parliament,
  order on 21 March 1997, the operative part of which is as              residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
  follows :                                                              Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,


title: Case C-212/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Andrea De Ciantis

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andrea De Ciantis
   (Case C-212/14)
   2014/C 292/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

   Andrea De Ciantis

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case C-122/08: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 17 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/32

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 17 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-122/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/67)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.