title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of Olieselskabet Danmark A.m.b.a. v. Trafikministeriet and Others (Case C-115/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 159/9
               on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and           received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1 995 , for a
               on the Common Customs Tariff (*) adopted                 preliminary ruling in the case of Olieselskabet Danmark
               pursuant thereto, or Article 95 of the EC                A.m. b.a . v. Trafikministeriet and Others on the following
               Treaty ?                                                 questions :
            — Or in so far as it is assumed that the case relates
                                                                        1 . Must the compatibility with Community law of a 40 %
               to services in respect of which consideration is             surcharge on a general goods duty, which is levied by a
               paid , under:                                                Member State when goods are imported by ship from
      ( B ) — Article 84 of the EC Treaty and Council                       another Member State, be assessed in the light of:
               Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December
               1986 applying the principle of freedom to                    ( A) — the Treaty rules on the Customs Union,
               provide services to maritime transport between                         including Articles 9 to 13 , if necessary in
               Member States and between Member States                                conjunction with Articles 18 to 29 and Council
               and third countries (2 )? Or                                           Regulations ( EEC ) No 950/68 of 28 June 1968
                                                                                on the Common Customs Tariff ( J ) and ( EEC )
            — Articles 90 and 86 of the EC Treaty on abuse of                         No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
               a dominant position, in which connection the                           statistical nomenclature and on the Common
               question arises as to whether Council                                  Customs Tariff ( 2 ) adopted pursuant thereto,
               Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 of 22 December                           or Article 95 of the Treaty ?
               1986 laying down -detailed rules for the
               application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty                        or :
               to maritime transport ( 3 ) is relevant for
               determining whether the surcharge is                         ( B ) — Article 84 of the Treaty and Council Regulation
               compatible with Community law ?                                        ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986
                                                                                applying the principle of freedom to provide
2 . Is it consistent with the Community-law provision(s )                             services to maritime transport between
                                                                                Member States and between Member States
      specified in the reply to Question 1 that a 40 %
      surcharge on a general goods duty should be levied on                           and third countries ( 3 )? Or
      imports of goods by ship from another Member
      State ?                                                                     — Articles 90 and 86 of the Treaty on abuse of a
                                                                                dominant position, in which connection the
3 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are                         question arises as to whether Council
      imported by ship into a Member State from a                                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 is relevant for
      non-member country with which the European                                      determining whether the surcharge is
      Economic Community has an agreement containing                                  compatible with Community law ?
      provisions corresponding to Articles 6 and 18 of the
      agreement between the Kingdom of Sweden and the                   2 . Is it consistent with the Community-law provision(s )
      European       Economic           Community,     and     the          specified in the reply to Question 1 that a 40%
      determination is made in the light of such a ( free-trade )           surcharge on a general goods duty should be levied on
      agreement ?                                                           imports of goods by ship from another Member
                                                                            State ?
4 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are
      imported into a Member State directly from a                      3 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are
      non-member country with which the European                            imported by ship into a Member State from a
      Economic Community does not have a ( free-trade )                     non-member country with which the European
      agreement ?                                                           Economic Community had an agreement containing
                                                                            provisions corresponding to Articles 6 and 18 of the
(M OJ No L 256 , 7 . 9 . 1987, p . 1 .                                      agreement between the Kingdom of Sweden and the
( 2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .                                European        Economic       Community,     and      the
( 3 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 4 .                                determination is made in the light of such a ( free-trade )
                                                                            agreement ?
                                                                        4 . Will the reply to Question 2 be the same if the goods are
                                                                            imported into a Member State directly from a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by                 non-member country with which the European
decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of
                                                                            Economic Community did not have a ( free-trade )
Olieselskabet Danmark A.m.b.a. v. Trafikministeriet and
                                                                            agreement ?
                                Others
                         ( Case C-115/95 )                              5 . Does it follow from Community law that a Member
                           ( 95/C 159/19 )                                  State which has imposed or approved a duty contrary to
                                                                            Community law is liable to repay the duty, even though
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      the proceeds of the duty have been allocated to
European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret                    independent operators subject to local authority
( Eastern Regional Court) of 24 March 1 995 , which was                     control ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/ 10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 6 . 95
6 . In view of the fact that it follows from the established                The applicant claims that the Court should :
     case-law of the Court of Justice that the repayment of
     duties levied in breach of Community law must have                     1 , declare that by failing to adopt by law, regulation or
     regard to the substantive and formal requirements laid                     administrative action within the prescribed time limit
     down in national legislation, and that the Court of                        the necessary provisions to comply with Council
     Justice held at paragraph 12 of its judgment in Case                       Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the
      1 99/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v . San
                                                                                minimum hygiene rules applicable to fishery products
      Giorgio of 9 November 1983 ( 4 ) that entitlement to the                  caught on board certain vessels in accordance with
     repayment of charges levied by a Member State contrary                     Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) (i ) of Directive 91/493/EEC O , the
      to the rules of Community law is a consequence of, and                    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      an adjunct to, the rights conferred on individuals by the                 the EC Treaty;
      Community provisions prohibiting charges having an
      effect equivalent to customs duties or, as the case may
      be, the discriminatory application of internal taxes, the             2 , order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
      following question arises :
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      must the case-law of the Court of Justice be understood
      as meaning that Community law contains an                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
      unconditional obligation to repay duties which,                       C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on
      according to the replies to Questions 1 to 4 , may be                 1 January 1993 .
      contrary to Community law, but that this obligation is
      such that the detailed conditions for the actual
                                                                            (!) OJ No L 187, 7. 7. 1992 , p . 41 .
      processing of the claim for repayment are subject, within
      certain limits laid down in the case-law of the Court of
      Justice, to relevant national legislation ?
7. If it is held that the 40 % surcharge on the general goods
      duty is contrary to Community law, including
      ( free-trade ) agreements entered into, it is compatible              Action brought on 4 April 1995 by the Commission of the
      with Community law that a limitation period laid down                     European Communities against the Italian Republic
      in national law for repayment claims runs from an                                              ( Case C-117/95 )
      earlier point in time than that from which the Member
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/21 )
      State in question discontinued the duty which was
      contrary to Community law ?
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(M   OJ No    L 172 , 22 . 7 . 1968 , p . 1 .
                                                                            4 April 1995 by the Commission of the European
(2 ) OJ No    L 256 , 7 . 9 . 1987, p . 1 .
(')  OJ No    L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                            Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
(4 ) [ 1983 ] ECR, p . 3595 .                                               Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner
                                                                            Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                            1 , declare that by failing to adopt by law, regulation or
                                                                                administrative action within the prescribed time limits
                                                                                the necessary provisions to comply with Council
                                                                                Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down
Action brought on 4 April 1995 by the Commission of the                          control rules and measures to combat African horse
     European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                sickness (*) and Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May
                             ( Case C- 1 16/95 )                                 1992 introducing Community measures for the control
                               ( 95/C 159/20 )                                   of avian influenza ( 2 ) the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                   2 , order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 April 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
Centre, Kirchberg .                                                         C-79/95 ; the time limits for implementation expired on


title: Case C-324/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.9.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 226/11
breach of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 881/92 and of                    Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the
Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 3118/93.                                      European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-326/03)
(1) OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1.                                                                              (2003/C 226/19)
                                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by M.-J. Jonczy, of its Legal Service.
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-324/03)
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 226/18)                                         Council Directive 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning
                                                                                the Agreement on the organisation of working time of
An action against the Commission of the European                                   seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners"
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the Italian                                Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), and in
Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent,                     any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
and Avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.                                          the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     annul the memorandum from Commissioner Barnier of
      14 May 2003 No 26777, received on 20 May 2003, in so
      far as it refuses to accept as eligible for assistance advances        Pleas in law and main arguments
      granted in relation to State aid by the Member States after
      19 February 2003, and all measures on which it is based                The period within which the directive had to be transposed
      or with which it is connected;                                         expired on 30 June 2002.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.
The applicant claims that the contested act is manifestly
contrary to Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1) and Rule No 1, Points 1 and 2 of the
annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, none of the provisions of the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
abovementioned regulations assigns significance, for the pur-                Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo,
poses of eligibility of amounts granted to the final recipient of            division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in
the funding by way of State aid, to the activities actually assisted         the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales
by the funding itself. On the contrary, the system set out in the            y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party:
regulations in question gives significance exclusively to pay-                                            G.M. Imo
ments actually made by the Member State as final recipient, on
the sole condition that they state exactly the expenditure actu-                                      (Case C-330/03)
ally borne by the final recipient itself.
                                                                                (2003/C 226/20)
The applicant also claims that the contested act is unlawful
inasmuch as its statement of reasons is defective and contra-                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
dictory.                                                                     European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                             Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three (Supreme
                                                                             Court, Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings) of
                                                                             21 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2003, for
(1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de
(2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.                                                    Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado,
                                                                             other Party: G. M. Imo on the following questions:


title: Case C-387/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds — Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed — Evidence provided by way of a tax representative — National financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-387/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Legislation of a Member State concerning investment funds and real property investment funds - Evidence relating to revenue regarded as distributed - Evidence provided by way of a tax representative - ‘National’ financial institutions and business trustees recognised as tax representatives)
   2011/C 340/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent.)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 49 EC and of Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — Legislation of a Member State restricting tax representation in respect of investment funds and real property investment funds to business trustees and financial institutions established in that State

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only national financial institutions and national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment funds or real property investment funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-770/16: Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/50

         Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament
   (Case T-770/16)
   (2017/C 006/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Jozefow, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

         In consequence:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 August 2016;

               —

               Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 5 July 2016 imposing the same sanctions;

               —

               Order compensation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused by the contested decisions; in the alternative award the applicant the sum of EUR 13 306;

               —

               In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, infringement of the freedom of speech and of expression of EU citizens, with the particular circumstance that the comments referred to in the decision were made by an MEP in the exercise of his duties and inside the EU institutions, and infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and/or infringement of the general principle of impartial treatment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights of the defence and Article 166(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be given for acts of the EU institutions and infringement of the principles of proportionality and ne bis in idem.


title: Case C-307/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 25 June 2015 — Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
   (Case C-307/15)
   (2015/C 279/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ana María Palacios Martínez

      Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, for the restitutory effects derived from a declaration on grounds of unfairness of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ included in a loan agreement not to be applied retroactively from the date of conclusion of the agreement but rather from a later date?

               2.

               Is the criterion that those concerned must act in good faith, which operates as a basis for limiting the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

               3.

               If so, what circumstances must be taken into account in order for it to be determined whether those concerned acted in good faith?

               4.

               At all events, is it compatible with the criterion of good faith for the actions of a seller or supplier, in creating the agreement, to have been the cause of a lack of transparency making the term unfair?

               5.

               Is the risk of serious difficulties, which operates as a basis for limitation of the retroactive effect derived from an unfair term, an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Member States?

               6.

               If so, what criteria ought to be taken into account?

               7.

               Must the risk of serious difficulties be assessed by taking account solely of the risk which may arise for the seller or supplier or must account also be taken of the loss caused to a consumer by the failure to reimburse in full the sums paid under that ‘floor clause’?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-47/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission (Officials — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal procedure)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission
   (Case T-47/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal procedure)
   (2006/C 331/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Alex Milbert (Hesperange, Luxembourg), Saturnino Durán Vidal (Brussels, Belgium), Roland Hanff (Dudelange, Luxembourg), Maria Anita Nuotio (Brussels), Paraskevi Papageorgiou (Brussels), Andrea Ranschaert (Drongen, Belgium), Reinhard Rieder (Brussels) and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, then F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Primarily, application for annulment of the 2001-2002 appraisal procedure in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, annulment of the applicants' career development reports in respect of that procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions adopting the career development reports of Mr Terezakis and Ms Papageorgiou for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those of Mr Terezakis and Ms Papageorgiou;

               4.

               Orders Mr Milbert, Mr Durán Vidal, Mr Hanff, Mr Rieder, Ms Nuotio and Ms Ranschaert to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-169/09: Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/29

         Action brought on 13 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-169/09)
   2009/C 153/56
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Schønberg and M. Kapanasou Apostolopoulou, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by not informing the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2005/32/EC into national law expired on 10 August 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 191 of 22.7.2005, p. 29.


title: Case T-239/11: Action brought on 3 May 2011 — Sigma Alimentos Exterior v Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/26

         Action brought on 3 May 2011 — Sigma Alimentos Exterior v Commission
   (Case T-239/11)
   2011/C 204/47
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Ferre Navarrete, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision to the extent that it declares that Article 12(5) of the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (‘TRLIS’) (the consolidated text of the Spanish Company Tax Act) contains elements of State aid;

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision to the extent that it declares that Article 12(5) of TRLIS contains elements of State aid when applied to acquisitions of shareholdings which involve acquisition of control;

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 4 of the contested decision to the extent that it orders recovery in respect of transactions carried out prior to the publication in Official Journal of the European Union of the final decision under appeal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in these proceedings acquired shareholdings in companies established in the United States and in Peru during the tax years 2008 to 2010 and amortized the financial goodwill generated in the acquisition of majority shareholdings in those companies, pursuant to Article 12(5) of TRLIS.
   On 12 January 2011 the Commission adopted the contested decision C(2010) 9566 final on the tax amortization of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/2007 (ex NN 51/2007, ex CP 9/2007). As a consequence of that decision, the Administración Tributaria (Spanish tax authority) commenced verification procedures with the objective of correcting the amortizations applied by the applicant.
   In support of its action the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea, based on the failure to satisfy the requirements necessary to consider the measure as State aid.

                           —

                           The applicant maintains in this regard that the main reason why the tax system at issue cannot be considered to be State aid is the fact that the measure concerned is not selective. The Commission commits an error when it holds that there is de facto selectivity because the measure favours national acquisitions and because a shareholding of at least 5 % is required. The applicant claims that the Commission arrives at that conclusion by dispensing with any analysis of the types of businesses and business sectors in which the companies which have applied that system intervene.

               2.

               Second plea, based on the failure to state reasons for the decision.

         The applicant considers that the grounds on which the Commission bases its view that there are no explicit legal obstacles in the acquisition of companies in the United States and in Peru are manifestly insufficient.


title: Case F-27/08: Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Simões dos Santos v OHIM

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/25

         Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Simões dos Santos v OHIM
   (Case F-27/08)
   (2008/C 158/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Manuel Simões dos Santos (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of several decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in so far as they do not correctly enforce the judgment in Case T-435/04, not granting the applicant the balance of points whose elimination was annulled by the Court of First Instance, and for payment of default interest on the amount corresponding to the difference in salary which the applicant should have received.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 December 2007 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 8 August 2007, and the decision No PERS-01-07 relating to the award of promotion points under the 2003 promotion procedure, the decision ADM-07-17 interpreting decision ADM-03-35 relating to the career and promotion of officials and members of the temporary staff and the letter of 15 June 2007, entitled, ‘Definitive awarding of 2007 promotion points adopted by the Appointing Authority’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the applicant the default interest on the amount corresponding to the difference in salary which he should have received had the elimination of the balance of his promotion points not occurred, calculated at a rate fixed by the Court;

               —

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


title: Case C-395/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 12 September 2008 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno and Massimo Pettini

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 12 September 2008 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno and Massimo Pettini
   (Case C-395/08)
   (2008/C 327/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte d'appello di Roma
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

      Defendants: Tiziana Bruno and Massimo Pettini
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Italian State legislation (Article 7(1) of Law No 638/83) (1) which results in periods not worked under ‘vertical’ part-time arrangements not being taken into account as periods of qualifying contributions for the purpose of acquiring pension rights compatible with Directive 97/81/EC, and in particular Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] concerning the principle of non-discrimination?

               2.

               Are those national provisions compatible with Directive 97/81/EC and, in particular, Clause 1 [of the Framework Agreement], which provides that national legislation must facilitate the development of part-time work, and Clauses 4 and 5, which provide that the Member States are to eliminate obstacles of a legal nature which may limit access to part-time work, since it is unquestionable that the failure to take into account for pension purposes the weeks not worked constitutes a significant disincentive to choosing ‘vertical’ part-time working arrangements?

               3.

               Can Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] on the principle of non-discrimination also be extended to various kinds of part-time contract, in view of the fact that, in the case of ‘horizontal’ part-time work, where the total number of hours worked and for which remuneration is paid in the calendar year is equal, all the weeks of the calendar year are taken into account under national legislation, whereas they are not in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work — OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.


title: Case C-406/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Petya Milkova v Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Articles 5 and 27 — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 7 — Enhanced protection in the event of dismissal of employees with disabilities — No such protection for civil servants with disabilities — General principal of equal treatment)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Petya Milkova v Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol
   (Case C-406/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Articles 5 and 27 - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 7 - Enhanced protection in the event of dismissal of employees with disabilities - No such protection for civil servants with disabilities - General principal of equal treatment))
   (2017/C 144/08)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Petya Milkova

      Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Agentsiata za privatizatsia i sledprivatizatsionen kontrol

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009, and in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be construed as allowing legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on employees with certain disabilities specific advance protection in the event of dismissal, without conferring such protection on civil servants with the same disabilities, unless it has been established that there has been an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. When making that determination, the comparison of the situations must be based on an analysis focusing on all the relevant rules of national law governing the positions of employees with a particular disability, on the one hand, and the positions of civil servants with the same disability, on the other, having regard, in particular, to the purpose of the protection against dismissal at issue in the main proceedings;

               2.

               In the event that Article 7(2) of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment, precludes legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation to comply with EU law would require that the scope of the national rules protecting employees with a particular disability should be extended, so that those protective rules also benefit civil servants with the same disability.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2004 in Joined Cases T-219/02 and T-337/02: Olga Lutz Herrera v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open Competition — Non-admission to test — Notice of competition — Age limit)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/34

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 October 2004
   in Joined Cases T-219/02 and T-337/02: Olga Lutz Herrera v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Open Competition - Non-admission to test - Notice of competition - Age limit)
   (2005/C 6/66)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Joined Cases T-219/02 and T-337/02: Olga Lutz Herrera, resident in Brussels, (Belgium) represented by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and J. Guillem Carrau, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and Guitiérrezz Gisbert, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decisions of the selection board in Competition COM/A/6/01 of 31 July 2001 and of the selection board in Competition COM/A/10/01 of 20 December 2001 refusing to admit the applicant to those tests on the ground that she exceeded the age limit and, in the alternative, applications for annulment of the rejection of the administrative complaints lodged by the applicant against the decisions of the selection boards in Competitions COM/A/6/01 and COM/A/10/01) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.


title: Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht, dated 14 September 2011 , in the case between Granville Establishment and Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt (Case E-13/11)

text:
               2.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 29/12

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht, dated 14 September 2011, in the case between Granville Establishment and Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt
   (Case E-13/11)
   2012/C 29/09
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 15 September 2011 from Fürstliches Landgericht, Liechtenstein (Princely Court of Justice, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 September 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case between Granville Establishment and Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt, on the following questions:

               1.

               Can a national of an EEA State rely on a provision such as Section 53a of the Liechtenstein Jurisdiction Law, which accords Liechtenstein nationals the right not to be sued abroad on the basis of a jurisdiction agreement unless that jurisdiction agreement has been publicly recorded, and derive directly there from also the right not to be sued in Liechtenstein (and, thus, from the perspective of that national, also abroad) on the basis of a jurisdiction agreement unless it has been publicly recorded?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative. Can that right be invoked in a case such as the one at hand, that is, in civil law proceedings, and thus directly in a dispute between private parties?


title: Case C-692/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Security Service Srl v Ministero dell’Interno and Others

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Security Service Srl v Ministero dell’Interno and Others
   (Case C-692/15)
   (2016/C 106/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Security Service Srl

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma

      Questions referred

               1.

               [Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-465/2005 Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:781), in which that court] found that the Italian State was in breach of the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services), stating that:

                           (a)

                           it is obligatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic in order to work as a private security guard;

                           (b)

                           private security guard activities may be pursued by service providers established in another Member State only after authorisation of limited territorial validity has been granted by the Prefetto (provincial governor) without taking account of the obligations to which such providers are already subject in their Member State of origin;

                           (c)

                           that authorisation is to be of limited territorial validity and is to be granted subject to consideration of the number and size of private security undertakings already operating in the area in question;

                           (d)

                           private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate;

                           (e)

                           the staff of private security undertakings must be individually authorised to undertake private security work without taking account of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin;

                           (g)

                           private security undertakings must have a minimum and/or maximum number of employees in order to obtain authorisation;

                           (h)

                           such undertakings must lodge a guarantee with the local Cassa depositi e prestiti;

                           (i)

                           the prices for private security services are to be fixed, with the approval of the Prefetto, within the limits of a predetermined margin for variation;
                           [to be interpreted as] precluding, of itself, the provincial public security authority (the Questore) from imposing requirements regarding the provisions of services such as those at issue in this case, [which] make it compulsory to deploy a minimum number of security guards (two) for operations entailing the provisions of particular services?

               2.

               Notwithstanding the fact that it is a new question, may the question referred to above may be said to be sufficiently analogous to the questions raised in Case C-462/2005 as to lead to the same outcome, on the basis of Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 6 March 1997 in Case C-303/96 P: Giorgio Bernardi v. European Parliament (Appeal - European Ombudsman - Nominations - Appointment procedure - Action for annulment - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)

text:
No C 142/8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                       the clearance of the accounts presented by the
                        ( First Chamber)                                   Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992
                                                                           of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                       of 6 March 1997                                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ) and in
in Case C-303/96 P: Giorgio Bernardi v. European                           respect of certain expenditure for 1993 ('), so far as
                          Parliament (M                                    concerns the chapters which relate to financial
                                                                           corrections chargeable to the Hellenic Republic for
(Appeal — European Ombudsman — Nominations —                               olive oil, wine, cotton and tobacco,
Appointment procedure — Action for annulment —
      Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)
                          ( 97/C 142/ 16 )
                                                                      — order the Commission to remove the qualification
                                                                           made by it in respect of the clearance of accounts for
                                                                           1990 and to refund to the applicant the deducted sum
                (Language of the case: French)                             of Dr 4 500 000 000 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-303/96 P: Giorgio Bernardi ( Lawyer: Giancarlo              In its application, the Hellenic Republic alleges numerous
Lattanzi ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of              errors of fact in relation to each of the products, olive oil,
First Instance of 11 July 1996 in Case T-146/95 Bernardi              wine, cotton and tobacco, and misinterpretation of the
v. Parliament, not yet published in the European Court                regulations . It also alleges that the Commission misused
Reports, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other           its powers or exceeded the limits of its discretion.
party to the proceedings being the European Parliament
( Agent: Ezio Perillo, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — the
Court ( First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevon, President              As regards the qualification made by the Commission, the
of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet                       applicant alleges that the Commission was obliged to
( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate             make immediate final payment of the corresponding
                                                                      financial correction with the clearance of the accounts for
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                      1992 .
6 March 1997, in which it:
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                             H OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p . 26 .
2 . orders Mr Bernardi to pay the costs.
H OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997.
                                                                      Action brought on 11 February 1997 by the Italian
                                                                      Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-59/97 )
Action brought on 6 February 1997 by the Hellenic
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/18
Republic against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                        ( Case C-46/97 )
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                          ( 97/C 142/17)                              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities on 11 February 1997 by the
                                                                      Italian Republic, represented by Gianni De Bellis, Avvoca
An action against the Commission of the European                      to dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
the European Communities on 6 February 1997 by the
Hellenic Republic, represented by Ioannis-Konstantinos
Khalkias, Member of the State Legal Service, and                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Panagiotis Milonopoulos, Legal Adviser in the Special
Department for Community Legal Affairs, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val               — annul the decision of the Commission of 20 November
Sainte-Croix.                                                              1996 No C(96)3274 final in so far as it refuses to
                                                                           allow charging to the EAGGF of Lit 11 934 331 913
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                in the clearance of accounts submitted by the Italian
                                                                           Republic in respect of expenditure in 1992,
— annul Commission Decision E ( 96 ) 3274 of
    20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/31 1/EC on                  — order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings .


title: Case T-329/05: Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Movimondo ONLUS v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/18

         Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Movimondo ONLUS v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-329/05)
   (2005/C 257/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties:

      Applicant: Movimondo ONLUS (Rome, Italy) (represented by Paolo Vitali, Giulia Verusio, Gian Michele Roberti and Alessandra Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought:
   The applicant's principal claim is that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the European Commission (ECHO department) has failed to perform its contractual undertakings as regards its contractual obligations under the Grant Agreements concluded within the ambit of Framework Partnership Agreement No 3-134 and in consequence

               —

               order the European Commission to pay Movimondo the following sums:

                           —

                           EUR 36 500,51 relating to the MAGUINDANAO project: ECHO/PHL/210/2003/02003, together with default interest running from 25 September 2004;

                           —

                           EUR 150 000,00 relating to the ECHO 9 PALESTINE project: ECHO/TPS/210/2003/08018, together with default interest running from 16 September 2004;

                           —

                           EUR 52 500,00 relating to the DIPECHO INDIA project: ECHO/TPS/210/2003/03005, together with default interest running from 24 March 2005;

                           —

                           EUR 50 865,96 relating to the ECHO LEBANON project: ECHO/TPS/210/2003/08020, together with default interest running from 15 August 2005;

                           —

                           EUR 119 485,70 relating to the ECHO BAJO YUNA project: ECHO/CR/BUD/2004/01006, together with default interest running from 12 June 2005;

                           —

                           EUR 28 500,00 payable for the ECHO RUNDU II project: ECHO/AGO/BUD/2004/01018, together with default interest running from 13 July 2005;

                           —

                           EUR 70 085 relating to the ECHO SAMANA' project: ECHO/DOM/BUD/2004/01001, together with default interest running from 16 May 2005;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         The applicant's subsidiary claim is that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision suspending the time-limits for payment contained in the letter of 17 June 2005 of Director General Antonio Cavaco, Humanitarian Aid Office, ECHO 3, Ref. D 6613, concerning the ‘injunction to pay outstanding payments due to Movimondo’ and, consequently, order the European Commission to pay Movimondo the sums referred to above;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In this action the principal claim of the applicant organisation — an international cooperation and solidarity NGO — pursuant to Article 238 EC, is that the European Commission should be ordered to pay the sums due under contractual obligations arising out of several Grant Agreements concluded within the ambit of Framework Partnership Agreement No 3-134, in force from 1 December 2003, and concerning the financing by the European Commission of urgent humanitarian actions carried out in full and properly accounted for.
   Its subsidiary claim pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC is for annulment of the decision suspending the time-limits for payment contained in the letter of 17 June 2005 of Director General Antonio Cavaco, Humanitarian Aid Office, ECHO 3, Ref. D 6613, concerning the ‘injunction to pay outstanding payments due to Movimondo’ and the decision of 27 July 2005 of Director General Antonio Cavaco, Humanitarian Aid Office ECHO 3, Ref. D 8136.
   In support of its application for annulment of the decision suspending the time-limits for payment contained in the letter of 17 June 2005, the applicant puts forward in particular three pleas in law.
   In the first plea, it argues that in adopting the decision to suspend the time-limits for payment in question ECHO's staff have exercised their authority improperly, taking as the legal basis for the contested decision Article 106(4) of Regulation 2342/2002, (1) outside the specific situations and purposes provided for by that provision. In the second, it alleges failure to state the grounds of the contested decisions, contrary to Article 253 EC, and to Article 106(4) of Regulation No 2342/2002; last, in its third plea, it alleges a procedural infringement of Article 106(4) of Regulation No 2342/2002, ECHO's staff not having informed Movimondo directly of the suspension order.
   In support of its action for annulment of the decision of 27 July 2005, however, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
   In the first, the applicant alleges failure to state the grounds of the contested decision; in the second, it challenges the breach of the general principle of presumption of innocence, and breach of the right to a fair hearing, in that the ECHO staff did not take steps to inform it of the initiatives they meant to take regarding it, nor did they give it the opportunity to be heard in that context. In the third plea, it challenges the breach of Article 106(4) of Regulation 2342/2002 and also alleges misuse of powers by ECHO staff. Last, in the fourth plea, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357 of 31 December 2002).


title: Case C-105/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova
   (Case C-105/17)
   (2017/C 144/41)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite

      Respondent: Evelina Kamenova

      Question referred

               1.

               Must Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 2005/29/ЕC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair commercial practices be interpreted as meaning that the action of a natural person who is registered on a website for the sale of goods, and who published a total of eight advertisements at the same time for the sale of different items via the website, is the action of a trader within the meaning of the legal definition in Article 2(b), represents a business-to-consumer commercial practice within the meaning of Article 2(d) and comes within the scope of the directive pursuant to Article 3(1) thereof?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (Text with EEA relevance).

      OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case T-703/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission (Arbitration clause — ‘Firerob’ contract concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Request for reimbursement of the amounts paid to the applicant — Delegation of power — Admissibility — Abuse of contractual rights — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission
   (Case T-703/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - ‘Firerob’ contract concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Request for reimbursement of the amounts paid to the applicant - Delegation of power - Admissibility - Abuse of contractual rights - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 078/26)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net AEVE (Kaisariani, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis and E. Chrysochoïdou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, M. Konstantinidis and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking, first, a declaration by the Court that the Commission failed to fulfil its contractual obligations by issuing Debit Note No 3 241 409 008 of 25 July 2014 and that the costs declared by the applicant in the context of Contract FP7-SME-2007-222303, relating to the realisation of Project ‘FIREROB — Autonomous Fire-Fighting Robotic Vehicle’, are eligible and, second, an order for the Commission to issue a credit note for an amount of EUR 64 574.73.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility;

               2.

               Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the present action in so far as it concerns a request for reimbursement of an amount exceeding EUR 37 247.05, plus interest starting from 9 September 2014;

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Contract FP7-SME-2007-222303, relating to the realisation of Project ‘FIREROB — Autonomous Fire-Fighting Robotic Vehicle’, by asking Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net AEVE to repay an amount exceeding EUR 9 007, plus interest starting from 9 September 2014;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

               6.

               Orders Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net to bear one quarter of its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-156/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 83/182/EEC — Temporary import of means of transport — Tax exemptions — Normal residence in a Member State)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-156/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 83/182/EEC - Temporary import of means of transport - Tax exemptions - Normal residence in a Member State)
   (2007/C 170/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and I. Pouli, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 90 EC and of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another — Temporary use on Greek territory of vehicles registered in another Member State — Application of customs provisions applicable to vehicles from non-member countries
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that in laying down:

                           —

                           in Article 18(A)(1) of Law No 2682/1999 that, in the event of possession or use in Greek territory of a vehicle registered in another Member State by an individual who has his normal residence in Greece, the criminal proceedings provided for as a matter of course will not be brought if the person concerned pays the registration fee charged and at the same time refrains from seeking, in relation to the act leading to the imposition of that fee, the legal remedies provided for under national law, and

                           —

                           in Article 18(C)(1) of Law No 2682/1999 that, where fines are imposed, vehicles are also to be temporarily immobilised, and released on payment of the fines and any other charges owed,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2002 in Case T-126/99: Graphischer Maschinenbau GmbH, KBA-Berlin GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aids — Restructuring aid — Action for annulment — Manifest errors of assessment)

text:
27.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 180/21
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 14 May 2002                                                             of 14 May 2002
                                                                          in Case T-80/00: Associação Comercial de Aveiro v
in Case T-126/99: Graphischer Maschinenbau GmbH,                                 Commission of the European Communities (1)
KBA-Berlin GmbH v Commission of the European Com-
                            munities (1)
                                                                          (Social policy — European Social Fund — Application for
                                                                          annulment — Reduction of financial assistance — State-
(State aids — Restructuring aid — Action for annulment —                  ment of reasons — Principle of proportionality — Assess-
                 Manifest errors of assessment)                                                       ment of facts)
                         (2002/C 180/34)                                                            (2002/C 180/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-80/00, Associação Comercial de Aveiro, established
In Case T-126/99, Graphischer Maschinenbau GmbH, estab-                   in Aveiro (Portugal), represented by J. Amaral e Almeida and
lished in Berlin (Germany), represented by A. Bach, avocat,               B. Diniz de Ayala, lawyers, with an address for service in
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of                Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and                    (Agents: H. Speyart and M. França): Application for annulment
P. Nemitz): Application for the partial annulment of Com-                 of Commission Decision C(99) 3684 of 30 November 1999
mission Decision 1999/690/EC of 3 February 1999 on State                  reducing the European Social Fund assistance granted in the
aid which Germany is planning to introduce for Graphischer                framework of project No 890365/P 1 to Associação Comercial
Maschinenbau GmbH, Berlin (OJ 1999 L 272, p. 16), the                     de Aveiro, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),            composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi, J. Pirrung,           P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-             has given a judgment on 14 May 2002, in which it:
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May
2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(96) 3684 of 30 November
                                                                                1999 reducing the European Social Fund assistance granted to
1.    Annuls Commission decision 1999/690/EC of 3 February                      the Associação Comercial de Aveiro in the context of project
      1999 on State aid which Germany is planning to introduce for              No 890365/P 1 in so far as it reduces the amount of the
      Graphischer Maschinenbau GmbH, Berlin to the extent to                    services invoiced by SI, — Sistemas de Informação Ld.a under
      which it declares the part of the planned aid exceeding the               subheading 14.3.9, hire and rental charges;
      amount of DEM 4 435 million incompatible with the common
      market and prohibits it;                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                         3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                third of those incurred by the applicant;
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          4.    Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case T-134/10: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014  — FESI v Council (Action for annulment  — Dumping  — Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather coming from Macao  — Association representing independent importers  — Lack of individual concern  — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures  — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/34

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — FESI v Council
   (Case T-134/10) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Dumping - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather coming from Macao - Association representing independent importers - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 135/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Vermulst and Y. van Gerven, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 1996 L 352, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-93/07: Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/24

         Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-93/07)
   (2007/C 95/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2003/35/EC expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.


title: Case T-67/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2016 — Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN — Earlier EU figurative marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Production of additional evidence — Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Remittal of the case in part to the Opposition Division — Article 64(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2016 — Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)
   (Case T-67/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN - Earlier EU figurative marks BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Production of additional evidence - Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Remittal of the case in part to the Opposition Division - Article 64(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 006/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Polo Club (Gassin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by V. Melgar and H. Kunz and subsequently by H. O’Neil, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Russo and V. Wellens, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2014 (Case R 1882/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Lifestyle Equities and Polo Club.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Polo Club to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-389/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008 — Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. v OHIM (Representation of a pelican) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark depicting a pelican — Earlier Community or national figurative trade mark Pelikan — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008 — Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. v OHIM (Representation of a pelican)
   (Case T-389/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark depicting a pelican - Earlier Community or national figurative trade mark Pelikan - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 128/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. Hofmann and B. Linstow, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Pelikan Vertriebsgessellschaft mbH & Co.KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and T. Dolde, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 September 2003 (Case R 191/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21, 21.1.2004.


title: Case C-77/14: Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-77/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/33)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-449/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark WISENT — Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the marks — Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT)
   (Case T-449/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark WISENT - Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the marks - Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 007/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Mrozowski and G. Rząsa, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA (Łańcut, Poland) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 33/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 June 2013 (Case R 33/2012-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 27 August 1996 in the case of Oelmühle Hamburg Aktiengesellschaft and J. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Case C-298/96)

text:
 No C 318/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 10 . 96
 How, if at all, would the answers given to the questions                   ( Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 27 August
 referred in the case of Snares v. Adjudication Officer ( Case              1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 C-20/96 )( 1 ) differ in the case of a claimant entitled under             11 September 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
 United Kingdom legislation to attendance allowance as an                  Oelmühle Hamburg Aktiengesellschaft and J. Schmidt
 employed or self-employed person, in the light of the terms               Söhne     GmbH       &     Co .   KG     v.   Bundesanstalt      fur
 of the United Kingdom's declaration of 31 December 1986                   Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung ( Federal Office                     of
 pusuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                        Agriculture and Food ) on the following question :
  1408/71 ( 2 ) ' and of point 11 of Section O ( previously
 Section L ) of Annex VI to that Regulation ?
 (') Case C-20/96 Kelvin Albert Snares v. Adjudication Officer, ( OJ
       No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 ).                                   Is it compatible with Community law for German national
 ( 2 ) Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971        law to preclude the recovery of aid wrongly granted for the
       on the application of social security schemes to employed           processing of rape where the recipient, who was unaware of
       persons and their families moving within the Community ( OJ         the facts giving rise to the illegality of the notice of grant and
       No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p. 2 ).                                   whose ignorance thereof did not result from gross
                                                                           negligence ( paragraph 48 ( 2 ), seventh sentence, now
                                                                           paragraph 49a ( 2 ), second sentence, of the Ver
                                                                           waltungsverfahrensgesetz          ( Law on Administrative
                                                                           Procedure )), is able to rely, pursuant to Article 48 (2 ), sixth
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                           sentence, of that Law ( paragraph 49a ( 2 ) of the new version )
 Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that
                                                                           in conjunction with paragraph 818 ( 3 ) of the Bürgerliches
 court of 27 August 1996 in the case of Oelmühle Hamburg
                                                                           Gesetzbuch ( Civil Code ), on the absence of ( unjust)
 Aktiengesellschaft and J. Schmidt Söhne GmbH & Co. KG
                                                                           enrichment, where there would normally be held to be no
       v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung
                                                                           such enrichment if the recipient has already passed on the
                            ( Case C-298/96 )                             pecuniary advantage of the aid at the time when it is granted
                              ( 96/C 318/ 16 )                             by paying the target price provided for under Community
                                                                          legislation and has obtained no right of recourse, or merely a
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   worthless right of recourse, against the supplier of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                   processed rape ?
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  subsequently by Mr Hoff-Nielsen and Yves Cretien, then by
                         of 18 September 1996                             Mr Hoff-Nielsen, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.
                                                                          Berrisch ), supported by the Commission of the European
in Case T- 155/94: Climax Paper Converters Ltd v. Council                 Communities ( Agents: Eric White and Nicholas Khan ),
                      of the European Union ( 1 )                         application for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EC )
 (Anti-dumping duties — State-trading country — Individual                No 3664/93 of 22 December 1993 imposing a definitive
               treatment — Single dumping margin)                         anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of
                              ( 96/C 318 / 17 )                           photograph albums in bookbound form originating in the
                                                                          People's Republic of China and collecting definitively the
                                                                          provisional anti-dumping duty ( 2 ) — the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition ), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                                                                          President, R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Azizi and J. D.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Cooke, Judges, Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                          Administrator, has given a judgment on 18 September 1996 ,
                                                                          in which it:
In Case T- 155/94 : Climax Paper Converters Ltd, having its
registered office in Hong Kong, represented by Izzet M.                   1 . dismisses the application;
Sinan, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Arendt and Medernach, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt against
the Council of the European Union ( Agents : represented                  2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of
initially by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and Jorge Monteiro,                            the Council;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-120/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 3/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 19 September 2001                                                       of 19 September 2001
in Case T-120/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office                        in Case T-121/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                     (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                         machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                                             (EC) No 40/94)
                           (2002/C 3/47)                                                              (2002/C 3/48)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-120/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in                 In Case T-121/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in
Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by                Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by
C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address               C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation                for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                    in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)                (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)
— application brought against the decision of the First Board              — application brought against the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 February 2000 (Case                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 February 2000 (Case
R-520/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on                      R-529/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on
3 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),               3 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,             composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:                        given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                  (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.