title: Case T-383/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/26

         Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others
   (Case T-383/13)
   2013/C 313/51
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonios Chatzianagnostou (Serres, Greece) (represented by: X. Makris, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               entirely annul, first, the decision dated 10/05/2013 of the Head of Mission of EULEX Kosovo headed ‘Final decision on disciplinary case 02/2013’, notice of which was received by the applicant on 16/05/2013, and, second, the decision dated 10/05/2013 of the Head of Mission of EULEX Kosovo headed ‘Final decision on disciplinary case 06/2013’ notice of which was received by the applicant on 16/05/2013;

               —

               exonerate him of each of the disciplinary charges brought against him by Eulex;·

               —

               order Eulex to produce in these proceedings copies of all documents which are contained in his disciplinary files at issue,·and

               —

               order the defendants to pay the legal costs and the remuneration of his legal representative.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea concerns the infringement of an essential procedural requirement by reason of the complete absence of a statement of reasons for the contested acts and also the infringement of Article 296 TFEU and the general legal principles of the Member States of the European Union, in accordance with which reasons which are sufficient, full and specific must be stated for administrative acts adversely affecting an individual. In this case, the applicant maintains that a statement of reasons for the contested acts is wholly non-existent, even though it is an essential legal requirement.

               2.

               The second plea concerns the infringement by the defendants by means of the contested acts of the applicant’s rights of defence, which are derived from ECHR and the general legal principles common to the Member States of the European Union. The applicant, in the framework of the disciplinary case against him No 6/2013 within EULEX, was found guilty of a disciplinary offence in respect of an act by him, but he received no written notice of the charges and was denied the ability to speak in his defence. Further, the applicant was deprived of his right to have full, timely and effective access to legal assistance and thus readily to defend himself with the aid of a legal representative of his choice, appropriately briefed, with full knowledge of the disciplinary procedures against him within EULEX.

               3.

               The third plea concerns the claim that the contested acts contain errors in relation to the facts. The applicant maintains that the second contested act is based on suppositions and contradictory or inadequate reasons, thereby contravening the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence and his right not to incriminate himself. Further, that contested act is in error in that no account was taken of either the fact that the applicant committed a pardonable error of law or, at the least, the mitigating circumstances of his active repentance and remorse.

               4.

               The fourth plea concerns an infringement of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 ECHR, Article 15 TFEU, Regulation 1049/2001/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, (1) Directive 2003/98/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 Νοvember 2003 (2) and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant submits that the contested decisions of the EULEX Head of Mission, which confirmed the proposed disciplinary penalties to be imposed on the applicant, erred in law, because, if they were correct, they would have deemed admissible the applications brought by the applicant for their rescission on the ground, inter alia, of contravention of the above provisions relating to the applicant’s right to have access to the documents at issue in the two disciplinary cases against him within EULEX.

               5.

               The fifth plea concerns the infringement by the contested acts of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equity in respect of assessment of the extent of the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

      (2)  Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information.


title: Case T-397/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — Dow AgroSciences v EFSA (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products — Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority — Non-actionable measure — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/54

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — Dow AgroSciences v EFSA
   (Case T-397/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority - Non-actionable measure - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 209/96)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented initially by: A. Cuvillier and D. Detken, and subsequently by A. Cuvillier and S. Gabbi, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the opinion of EFSA of 28 July 2006 on the assessment of the active substance haloxyfop-R under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for the damage sustained.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Dow AgroSciences Ltd, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Commission shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-14/15: Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHIM — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/25

         Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten v OHIM — Mareea Comtur (airpass.ro)
   (Case T-14/15)
   (2015/C 081/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (Neu Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, and G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Mareea Comtur SRL (Deva, Romania)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘airpass.ro’ — Application for registration No 10 649 358

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2014 in Case R 1918/2013-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision in as much as it concerns the services in class 35;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Joined Cases C-319/10 and C-320/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank, Haarlem — Netherlands) — X v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Y (C-319/10) X BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst P (C-320/10) (Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature — Tariff classification — Boneless, frozen and salted chicken meat — Validity and interpretation of Regulations (EC) Nos 535/94, 1832/2002, 1871/2003, 2344/2003 and 1810/2004 — Additional note 7 to Chapter 2 of the combined nomenclature — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/10

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank, Haarlem — Netherlands) — X v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Y (C-319/10) X BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst P (C-320/10)
      (Joined Cases C-319/10 and C-320/10) (1)

      (Common Customs Tariff - Combined nomenclature - Tariff classification - Boneless, frozen and salted chicken meat - Validity and interpretation of Regulations (EC) Nos 535/94, 1832/2002, 1871/2003, 2344/2003 and 1810/2004 - Additional note 7 to Chapter 2 of the combined nomenclature - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects)
      (2012/C 25/16)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank, Haarlem

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: X (C-319/10), X BV (C-320/10)

         Defendants: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Y (C-319/10), Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst P (C-320/10)

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/94 of 9 March 1994 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1994 L 68, p. 15), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1871/2003 of 23 October 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 5) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2344/2003 of 30 December 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 346, p. 38) — Boneless, frozen, salted chicken cuts — Tariff classification

         Operative part of the judgment

      In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where the declarations for the customs procedure for ‘release for free circulation’ were made before 27 September 2005, it is not possible to rely on the decision of 27 September 2005 of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), adopting a report by the WTO appellate body (WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R) and two reports by a special WTO group (WT/DS269/R and WT/DS286/R), as amended by the appellate body, neither in the context of interpretation of the additional note 7 to Chapter 2 of the combined nomenclature in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, nor in the context of assessment of the validity of that additional note.

         (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 1997 in Case C-21/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Council Directive 84/466/Euratom)

text:
C 357/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 11 . 97
which accords with the provisions of Title II of that                 J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Convention or with the provisions of a convention which               Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
was in force between the two States concerned when the                Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in
proceedings were instituted, and must do so provisionally             which it:
if the court first seised has not yet ruled on whether it has
jurisdiction. On the other hand, the court second seised
must not apply Article 21 of the Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
and Commercial Matters if the court first seised has                       period the provisions necessary to implement
assumed jurisdiction on the basis of a rule which does not                 Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/466/
accord with the provisions of Title II of that Convention                  Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic
or with the provisions of a convention which was in force                  measures for the radiation protection of persons
between those two States when the proceedings were                         undergoing medical examination or treatment, the
instituted.                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under the Euratom Treaty;
(') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                      2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      (') OJ C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                       of 9 October 1997
in    Case   C-21/96: Commission of the European                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
             Council Directive 84/466/Euratom)                                                 of 9 October 1997
                          ( 97/C 357/ 14                              in Joined Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 (reference
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Jus
                                                                      ticia de la Comunidad de Extremadura, Cáceres ): Antonio
                                                                      Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Social (INSS ), Francisco Vicente Mateos v. Instituto Nacio
                                                                      nal de la Seguridad Social (INSS ), Tesorería General de la
                                                                      Seguridad Social (TGSS), and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                           Seguridad Social (INSS ) v. Laura García Lázaro (')
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        (Social security — Invalidity — Old-age pensions —
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Article 47 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 —
                                                                                Calculation of benefits)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/15 )
In Case C-21/96 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Thomas F. Cusack and Isabel
Martinez del Peral ) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto
Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ) —                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/
466/Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic
measures for the radiation protection of persons                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
undergoing medical examination or treatment ( OJ L 265,                         published in the European Court Reports)
5 . 10 . 1984, p. 1 ) or by failing to inform the Commission
of the measures it has adopted for the transposition of the
Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Euratom Treaty — the Court ( Sixth              In Joined Cases C-31 /96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 : reference
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                 to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur),               Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad de Extre


title: Case T-32/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Slovak Republic v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Slovak Republic v Commission
   (Case T-32/07) (1)

   (2008/C 171/95)

      Language of the case: Slovak

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case F-103/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2011 — Jaeger v Eurofound

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2011 — Jaeger v Eurofound
   (Case F-103/10) (1)

   2012/C 138/98
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 64.


title: Judgment of the Court of 7 July 2014 in Case E-5/13 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012)

text:
               26.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/4

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 7 July 2014
   in Case E-5/13
   Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012)
   (2015/C 68/04)
   In Case E-5/13, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) Decisions of 25 January 2013 and 18 February 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 to deny access to documents, belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system), under the new rules on access to documents enacted by ESA on 5 September 2012 in ESA Decision No 300/12/COL (‘RAD 2012’) (not published in the Official Journal), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 7 July 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Annuls ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refuses to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL.

               2.

               Dismisses the application as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders each party and the intervener to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-109/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC — Directive 98/34/EC — Technical standards and regulations — National rules applicable to electrical, electromechanical and electronic computer games — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-implementation — Article 228 EC — Financial penalties)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-109/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC - Directive 98/34/EC - Technical standards and regulations - National rules applicable to electrical, electromechanical and electronic computer games - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-implementation - Article 228 EC - Financial penalties)
   2009/C 180/26
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, V. Karra and P. Mylonopoulos, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 26 October 2006 in Case C-65/05 — Infringement of Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) — National rules applicable to electronic computer games — Application for the setting of a penalty payment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not amending Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law No 3037/2002, laying down a prohibition, subject to the criminal and administrative penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of that law, on the installation and operation on all public or private premises, apart from casinos, of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, in accordance with Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, the Hellenic Republic has not taken all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 26 October 2006 in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, from delivery of the present judgment until the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece has been complied with;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 3 million;

               4.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 09.05.2008.


title: Case F-1/10: Action brought on 4 January 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/52

         Action brought on 4 January 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-1/10)
   2010/C 63/93
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Lecce, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decisions rejecting applicant’s requests for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions, in whatever form, by which the two claims for reimbursement of 25 December 2008 were rejected;

               —

               annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the request of 27 December 2008 was rejected;

               —

               annul, quatenus opus est, the decision, in whatever form, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 11 July 2009 against both decisions rejecting the two claims for reimbursement of 25 December 2008 and against the decision rejecting the request of 27 December 2008;

               —

               annul, quatenus opus est, the note of 21 September 2009, received by the applicant on 26 October 2009, which was not written in Italian, and the Italian translation of that note received on 24 December 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, without undue delay, by way of 100 % reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him for which he claimed reimbursement under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, the sum of EUR 2 519.08, or such lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, together with interest on the aforementioned sum, from the first day of the fifth month after the date on which the addressee of the request of 27 December 2008 and the two claims for reimbursement of 25 December 2008 was in a position to inspect them, at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, or at such rate with capitalisation and from such date as the Tribunal may consider appropriate;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, without undue delay, the difference between the amount paid by him in respect of medical expenses incurred between 1 December 2000 and 30 November 2008 inclusive, in relation to which the applicant made numerous claims for reimbursement under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme in the period between 1 December 2000 and 30 November 2008, and the amount reimbursed to him to date, or such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable in that connection, together with interest on the difference between such amounts or on such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, from the first day of the fifth month after the date on which the addressee of the request of 27 December 2008 was in a position to inspect it, at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, or at such rate with capitalisation and from such date as the Tribunal may consider appropriate;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-592/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2014 — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2014 — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
   (Case C-592/14)
   (2015/C 081/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients

      Defendants: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General

      Interveners: British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, European Coalition to End Animal Experiments

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 18(l)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1) to be interpreted as prohibiting the placing on the Community market of cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing where that testing was performed outside the European Union to meet the legislative or regulatory requirements of third countries in order to market cosmetic products containing those ingredients in those countries?

               2.

               Does the answer to question (1) depend on: -

                           (a)

                           whether the safety assessment carried out in accordance with Article 10 of that Regulation to demonstrate that the cosmetic product is safe for human health prior to it being made available on the Community market would involve the use of data resulting from the animal testing performed outside the European Union;

                           (b)

                           whether the legislative or regulatory requirements of the third countries for which the animal testing was undertaken relate to the safety of cosmetic products;

                           (c)

                           whether it was reasonably foreseeable, at the time that an ingredient was subjected to animal testing outside the European Union, that any person might seek to place a cosmetic product including that ingredient at some stage on the Community market; and/or

                           (d)

                           any other factor, and if so, what factor?

      (1)  OJ L 342, p. 59


title: Case T-29/08: Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Liga para a Protecção da Natureza v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/29

         Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Liga para a Protecção da Natureza v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-29/08)
   (2008/C 79/58)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the General Secretariat of the European Commission, in response to a confirmatory application, rejecting the LPN's application for access to the documents concerning the procedure for the construction of the dam in the lower Sabor.

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The information requested by the LPN from the Commission should be regarded, from the outset, as information which can and must be made available to it given the significant environmental interest which that entity seeks to defend and take charge of in the context of the project to construct the dam in the lower Sabor (Regulations Nos 1367/2006 (1) and 1049/2001 (2)).
   The derogation from the presumption that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure (Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006) does not relieve the Commission of the obligation to weigh up the basis of that interest in each individual case. Any grounds for refusal must be interpreted restrictively by the Commission.
   It is not sufficient for the Commission to rely on a theoretical model that the exception related to inspections and audits prevails, without giving any additional, concrete reasons on a document by document basis, in order to adopt a decision refusing access to all of the documents requested by the LPN.
   The Commission refused partial access, basing that refusal on general reasons without making any effort to divide the documents into ‘confidential and non-confidential parts’, on the basis that access may not be given to any of the documents relating to the inspection and investigation proceedings. However, the Commission also has to make a concrete assessment here of the information contained in the documents to which access is sought.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-24/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 January 2012 — X BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 January 2012 — X BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-24/12)
   2012/C 98/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU), can an own OCT be regarded as a third State, in which case it would be possible to rely on Article 56 EC in respect of the movement of capital between a Member State and the own OCT?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is it necessary in order to determine whether, for the purposes of Article 57(1) EC (now Article 64(1) TFEU), there has been an increase, for account to be taken in the present case — in which the withholding tax on participation dividends paid by a subsidiary company established in the Netherlands to its holding company established in the Netherlands Antilles was increased from the 1993 rate of 7,5 or 5 % to 8,3% as from 1 January 2002 — exclusively of the increase in the Netherlands withholding tax, or must account also be taken of the fact that, as from 1 January 2002, the Netherlands Antillean authorities have — in conjunction with the increase in the Netherlands withholding tax — granted an exemption in respect of participation dividends received from a subsidiary company established in the Netherlands, whereas previously those dividends formed part of profits taxed at a rate of 2,4 to 3 % or 5 %?

                           (b)

                           If account must also be taken of the tax reduction in the Netherlands Antilles effected by the introduction of the participation exemption referred to in question 2(a) above, should Netherlands Antillean implementation arrangements (in the present case: Netherlands Antillean rulings practice), the result of which may have been that prior to 1 January 2002 — including in 1993 — the actual tax liability in respect of dividends received from the/a subsidiary company established in the Netherlands was substantially lower than 8,3%, also be taken into consideration?


title: Case C-515/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 September 2013 — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v TEKNIQ, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 September 2013 — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v TEKNIQ, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS
   (Case C-515/13)
   2013/C 359/06
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin

      Defendant: TEKNIQ, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

      Question referred

   Is the prohibition of direct discrimination on grounds of age contained in Articles 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation whereby an employer, upon dismissal of a salaried employee who has been continuously employed in the same undertaking for 12, 15 or 18 years, must, upon termination of the salaried employee’s employment, pay an amount equivalent to one, two or three months’ salary respectively, while this allowance is not to be paid where the salaried employee, upon termination of employment, is entitled to receive a State retirement pension?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case T-133/08: Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Jørn Hansson (Lemon Symphony)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/31

         Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Jørn Hansson (Lemon Symphony)
   (Case T-133/08)
   (2008/C 142/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CPVO: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007) and declare the adaptation of the variety description for the plant variety Lemon Symphony null and void;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community plant variety right concerned: Lemon Symphony

      Proprietor of the Community plant variety right: Jørn Hansson

      Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office which is being contested: Adaptation of a variety description in accordance with Article 87(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1)

      Appellant before the Board of Appeal: the Applicant

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 59(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (2) inasmuch as the applicant was not summoned to the hearing in due form;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 inasmuch as the applicant was unable to present his comments orally or in writing on the absence of locus standi;

               —

               Infringement of Article 71(1), in conjunction with Article 68, of Regulation No 2100/94, inasmuch as the decision challenged before the Board of Appeal is of direct and individual concern to the applicant;

               —

               Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 230 EC inasmuch as the applicant's right to judicial review of administrative action has been infringed;

               —

               Infringement of Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 inasmuch as a member of the Board of Appeal allegedly had an interest in the proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).


title: Case C-247/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2016 — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2016 — Heike Schottelius v Falk Seifert
   (Case C-247/16)
   (2016/C 279/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heike Schottelius

      Defendant: Falk Seifert

      Question referred

   Can a principle of EU consumer law be derived from the second indent of Article 3[(5)] of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (1) to the effect that for all transactions in respect of consumer goods between non-consumers and consumers it is sufficient, in order to claim secondary rights under a warranty, that the non-consumer with warranty obligations has not completed the remedy within a reasonable time, and there is no requirement in that respect that a period of time for removing the defect be fixed expressly, and that the relevant provisions of national law, for instance also in the case of a contract for work on consumer goods, should be interpreted accordingly and if necessary applied restrictively?

      (1)  OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.


title: Case C-569/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v Richard Schlicht (Internet — eu Top Level Domain — Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 — Domain names — Phased registration — Special characters — Speculative and abusive registrations — Concept of ‘bad faith’ )

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v Richard Schlicht
   (Case C-569/08) (1)

   (Internet - eu Top Level Domain - Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 - Domain names - Phased registration - Special characters - Speculative and abusive registrations - Concept of ‘bad faith’)
   2010/C 209/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Internetportal und Marketing GmbH

      Defendant: Richard Schlicht

      Re:

   Preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 21(1)(a) and (b), (2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40) — Speculative and abusive registrations — Concepts of ‘rights or legitimate interest’ and ‘bad faith’ — Registration of a domain by the proprietor of a national trade mark acquired with the sole aim of enabling that registration in the first phase of phased registration — Domain differing substantially from the trade mark on which its registration was based, because of the elimination of the special character ‘&’ — Trade mark ‘&R&E&I&F&E&N&’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 21(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration must be interpreted as meaning that bad faith can be established by circumstances other than those listed in Article 21(3)(a) to (e) of that regulation;

               2.

               In order to assess whether there is conduct in bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation No 874/2004, read in conjunction with Article 21(3) thereof, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case and, in particular, the conditions under which registration of the trade mark was obtained and those under which the.eu top level domain name was registered.

         With regard to the conditions under which registration of the trade mark was obtained, the national court must take into consideration, in particular:

               —

               the intention not to use the trade mark in the market for which protection was sought;

               —

               the presentation of the trade mark;

               —

               the fact of having registered a large number of other trade marks corresponding to generic terms; and

               —

               the fact of having registered the trade mark shortly before the beginning of phased registration of.eu top level domain names.

         With regard to the conditions under which the.eu top level domain name was registered, the national court must take into consideration, in particular:

               —

               the abusive use of special characters or punctuation marks, within the meaning of Article 11 of Regulation No 874/2004, for the purposes of applying the transcription rules laid down in that article;

               —

               registration during the first part of the phased registration provided for in that regulation on the basis of a mark acquired in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings; and

         the fact of having applied for registration of a large number of domain names corresponding to generic terms..

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


11.4.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/21
the Basic Regulation, in particular with respect to the            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
potential impact of definitive anti-dumping measures on            removal from the register of Case T-78/94: Hermann
importers/retailers and consumers. The procedure within            Cordes v. Council of the European Union and
the meaning of Article 21 requires an active analysis of           Commission of the European Communities.
the Community interest issues, at least to the extent that
these are raised by interested parties. Once legitimate            (1) OJ C 103, 11.4.1994.
points are raised in this context, the Commission is bound
either to agree and make recommendations accordingly to
the Council for its definitive measures, or to provide a
reasonable explanation of its decision to the contrary.
Neither of these steps was taken in this case, contrary to
the legitimate expectations of the applicants.                           Removal from the register of Case T-192/95 (1)
Finally, the applicants submit that the Council's decision                                 (98/C 113/52)
to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on top of the
existing quantitative restrictions on imports of the product                      (Language of the case: English)
concerned from two (India and Pakistan) of the three
exporting countries is contrary to the principle of                By order of 5 February 1998 the President of the Third
proportionality.                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case T-192/95: Hitachi Ltd,
                                                                   Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
                                                                   Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.
                                                                   Ltd, Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd, Sharp Corporation and
      Removal from the register of Case T-191/93 (1)               Toshiba Corporation v. Commission of the European
                        (98/C 113/49)                              Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case T-191/93: Albrecht Graf
Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt v. Council of the European Union.                   Removal from the register of Case T-215/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 113/53)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 2 February 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                         T-224/93 (1)                              removal from the register of Case T-215/95: Telecom Italia
                        (98/C 113/50)                              SpA v. Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and
T-224/93: Hans-Erdmann von Flotow and Gunda                              Removal from the register of Case T-197/96 (1)
Bergmann v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                                (98/C 113/54)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       Removal from the register of Case T-78/94 (1)               Case T-197/96: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano
                                                                   Reggiano and Latteria Sociale Spadarotta soc. coop. arl v.
                        (98/C 113/51)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First


title: Case T-297/08: Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Mepos Electronics v OHIM (MEPOS)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/20

         Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Mepos Electronics v OHIM (MEPOS)
   (Case T-297/08)
   (2008/C 247/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mepos Electronics Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by M. Wirtz, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 437/2008-2;

               —

               Grant the request for restitutio in integrum; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MEPOS’ for goods in class 9 — application No 5 770 383

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the applicant's trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 36, 77(a) and 79 of Council Regulation No 40/94, as well as Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6(2) of Treaty on European Union as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the examiner has followed a lawful proceeding in the application process; infringement of Article 78 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred by not granting the request for restitutio in integrum for failure to comply with the time-limit to file an appeal.


title: Case T-206/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/35

         Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)
   (Case T-206/16)
   (2016/C 251/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRES TOROS 3’ — Application for registration No 12 796 926

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 407/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit its action against the contested decision, annul that decision and hold that:

                           1)

                           the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) does not apply to the EU trade mark applied for;

                           2)

                           in the alternative, and solely if the Court should consider that the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) is applicable to the mark applied for, hold that that prohibition applies only with respect to ‘wine’ goods, thus maintaining the rejection solely in that regard and restoring the validity of the mark for the remainder of the goods claimed in Class 33.

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs and to reimburse the appeal fees paid by the applicant to EUIPO, as the case may be.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 June 1995 in Case T-61/92: Henri de Compte v. European Parliament (Officials P Action for annulment P Decision of the President of the European Parliament granting a qualified discharge to the accounting officers in respect of the performance of their duties P Suspension of payment of the accounting officer's credit balance)

text:
No C 208/20           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Commission Decision 93/363/EEC of 9 June                     1993
                       of 14 June 1995                              concerning applications for refund of anti-dumping duties
                                                                    collected on imports of certain compact disc players
in Case T-61/92 : Henri de Compte v. European                       originating in Japan (Amroh BV, PIA HiFi , MPI
                         Parliament (M                              Electronic ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
(Officials — Action for annulment — Decision of the                 composed of J. Biancarelli, President of the Chamber, and
President of the European Parliament granting a qualified           C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
discharge to the accounting officers in respect of the              has given a judgment on 27 June 1995 in which it:
performance oftheir duties — Suspension ofpayment ofthe
              accounting officer's credit balance)                  1 . dismisses the application;
                         ( 95/C 208/41 )
                                                                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                 (Language of the case: French)                     (M OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 150 , 22 . 6 . 1993 , p . 44 .
In Case T-61/92 : Henri de Compte, a former official of the
European Parliament, residing at Chatel-Saint-Germain
( France ), represented by Edmond Lebrun and Eric Boigelot,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament ( Agents: Francois           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Vainker and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the                                  of 27 June 1995
annulment of the decision of the President of the European          in Case T- 1 86/94 , Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
Parliament of 19 December 1991 granting a discharge to the                           the European Communities ( J )
accounting officers in respect of the performance of their
duties in relation to the 1982 financial year, inasmuch as it       (Competition — Complaint — Notification under Article 6
contains a reservation and continues to suspend payment of          ofRegulation No 99/63/EEC — Action for failure to act —
the credit balance of the guarantee account opened in the                                 Action for annulment)
name of the applicant, and , second, for an order requiring                                     ( 95/C 208/43 )
the Parliament to pay that credit balance, together with
default interest — the Court of First Instance ( Second                              (Language of the case: French)
Chamber ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio , Judges; B. Pastor,              In Case T-l 86/94 Guérin Automobiles, of Alençon ( France ),
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
14 June 1995 , in which it:                                         Brussels Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon
1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                    v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                    Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues )
2 . orders the parties to pay their own costs.                      — Application for a declaration under Article 1 75 of the EC
                                                                    Treaty that the Commission has failed to address to the
(M OJ No C 258 , 7. 10 . 1992 .                                     applicant a decision on the complaint lodged by it under
                                                                    Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
                                                                    6 February 1962 , the first regulation implementing
                                                                    Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty ( 2 ), and in the alternative the
                                                                    annulment of the Commission's letters of 21 January 1993
                                                                    and 4 February 1994 — the Court of First Instance (Third
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Chamber, extended composition ), composed of: J.
                       of 27 June 1995                              Biancarelli, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, C. W.
in Case T-169/94 Pia HiFi Vertriebs GmbH v. Commission              Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 27 June 1995 , in which it:
               of the European Communities (')
(Anti-dumping duties — Application for the annulment ofa            1 . declares that it is not necessary to give a ruling on the
        decision on applications for reimbursement)                       application in so far as it is based on Article 1 75 of the
                         ( 95/C 208/42 )                                  Treaty;
                                                                    2 . dismisses the remainder of the application as
                (Language of the case: German)                            inadmissible;
In Case T-169/94 Pia HiFi Vertriebs GmbH, having its                3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
registered office in Weiterstadt ( Germany ), represented by
F. Michael Boemke, of the Hamburg Bar, with an address              ( l ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994, p. 15 .
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,           ( 2 ) OJ No 13 , 21 . 2 . 1962 , p. 204 . English Special Edition
11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                              1959—1962 , p. 87 .
Communities ( Agents : Eric White and Claus-Michael
Happe, then Jörn Sack) — application for the annulment of


title: Case T-824/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — Eveready Battery Company v OHIM — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/45

         Action brought on 19 December 2014 — Eveready Battery Company v OHIM — Hussain and Others (POWER EDGE)
   (Case T-824/14)
   (2015/C 065/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imran Hussain and Others (Leeds, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Power Edge’ — Application for registration No 9 108 705

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 38/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-111/00: Action brought on 2 May 2000 by British American Tobacco International (Investments) limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 192/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.7.2000
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the
                      European Communities                                  The applicant is a Notariatsassessor (associate notary) in Baden-
                                                                            Württemberg (Germany) and acts in a legal advisory capacity
                          (Case T-107/00)                                   there. In 1994 he applied for admission to the aptitude test in
                                                                            accordance with the German Law for admission to the
                                                                            profession of Rechtsanwalt (Eignungsprüfungsgesetz). That
                          (2000/C 192/32)
                                                                            application was refused by the German authorities and courts
                                                                            at several instances. The applicant now argues that the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Eignungsprüfungsgesetz was enacted in implementation of
                                                                            Directive 89/48/EEC (1). He maintains that, after the dismissal
                                                                            decisions by the German authorities and courts, he is individu-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   ally and directly affected by that directive, and that Article 1 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  the directive infringes Article 12 EC and several fundamental
European Communities on 26 April 2000 by the Consorzio                      rights. The provision gives nationals of other Member States,
Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), with Antonio Tizzano and Gian                   who hold a diploma satisfying the formal requirements of the
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon,               directive, access to the profession of German Rechtsanwalt by
Brussels.                                                                   passing the aptitude test, whereas German nationals holding
                                                                            diplomas of equal value are denied that possibility. In the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 applicant’s submission, that constitutes an inequality in treat-
                                                                            ment that should lead to the annulment of the directive.
— annul the implied rejection of the request for review
     submitted by the CIF to the Secretary-General of the
                                                                            (1) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989, p. 16.
     Commission on 20 January 2000 and also, if appropriate,
     the letter, dated 17 February 2000, from Mary E. Preston;
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                            Action brought on 2 May 2000 by British American
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Tobacco International (Investments) limited against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-40/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v                                           (Case T-111/00)
Commission.
                                                                                (2000/C 192/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt                            European Communities on 2 May 2000 by British American
          against the Council of the European Union                         Tobacco International (Investments) limited (London,
                                                                            England), represented by Mr. Scott Crosby of Kemmler Rapp
                          (Case T-109/00)                                   Böhlke & Crosby, Brussels.
                          (2000/C 192/33)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — annul the Decision of the Commission of 8 March 2000
                                                                                refusing access to the minutes of the Excise Duty Com-
                    (Language of the case: German)                               mittee of its meetings of 29-30 April 1998 and
                                                                                28-29 October 1999 relating to the apparent decision of
An action against the Council of the European Union was                          the Committee to classify expanded tobacco as an excisable
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                       product and to confirm that apparent decision respectively;
Communities on 26 April 2000 by Bernd Schmidt, residing in
Schwäbisch Hall (Germany), represented by Joachim Schorpp,                  — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
Rechtsanwalt, Delitzsch (Germany).                                               to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December
     1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-                The applicant explains that, as a tobacco company, it has a
     education diplomas awarded on completion of pro-                       vital interest in knowing why a given product — expanded
     fessional education and training of at least three years’              tobacco — is treated as smoking tobacco within the meaning
     duration void in relation to the professions of Rechtsanwalt           of Article 5(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1) and thus an excisable
     (attorney) and Patentanwalt (patent agent).                            product. The applicant considers the product an intermediary
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 192/19
product, not smokable without further processing, and there-             — Infringement of Article 37 of the EC Treaty: the notification
fore not excisable. There is no published decision determining               system provided for by the regulation in issue disregards
the issue and giving reasons for the classification chosen.                  the objectives of Article 37, inasmuch as its implemen-
Consequently, it requested access to complete minutes of the                 tation will lead to the disappearance of a considerable
meeting of the Excise Duty Committee of 29 and 30 April                      number of economic operators and will result, at the same
1998 and of the subsequent meeting of 28 and 29 October                      time, in the sources of supply of plant protection products
1999 at which the duty treatment of expanded tobacco was                     being concentrated amongst a few multinational under-
apparently determined. This request was definitively refused                 takings, thus enabling the latter to limit supplies and,
by letter of the Secretary General of 8 March 2000.                          consequently, to raise prices.
The applicant contests the validity of this decision. The pleas          — Failure to have regard to Directive 91/414/EEC: the
in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in                contested regulation alters the criteria governing appli-
Case T-41/00.                                                                cations for authorisation to market plant protection prod-
                                                                             ucts, so that they differ from those laid down in the
                                                                             abovementioned directive, which constitutes the legal basis
(1) OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.                                                    of the regulation.
                                                                         — Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, the
                                                                             protection of legitimate expectations and sound manage-
                                                                             ment: the new notification system prevents the applicants
                                                                             from marketing certain substances in respect of which they
                                                                             held marketing authorisations under the system provided
                                                                             for by Directive 91/414/EEC, without that situation being
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A. and                            justified on any public-interest grounds.
7 others against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                    — Infringement of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
                                                                             of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO) (3): the contested
                         (Case T-112/00)                                     regulation confers on persons holding the confidential
                                                                             information which must be provided in order to obtain
                                                                             authorisation to market plant protection products an
                         (2000/C 192/35)
                                                                             exclusive protection exceeding that arising from the prin-
                                                                             ciples underlying the provisions of the abovementioned
                   (Language of the case: French)                            Agreement, in particular Articles 8(2) and 39(3) thereof.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               (1) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.
European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A.,                     (3) OJ L 336 of 23.12.1994, p. 214.
established in Barcelona (Spain), and 7 others, represented by
Miquel Roca Junyent and Joan Roca Sagarra, of the Barcelona
Bar.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC)
     No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the
     detailed rules for the implementation of the second                 Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemeinschaft
     and third stages of the work programme referred to in               Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE) against the Commission
     Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC;                                       of the European Communities
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                                                 (Case T-114/00)
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                                              (2000/C 192/36)
The applicants contest Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000(1) laying down the detailed
rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of
the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protec-             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
tion products on the market (2), the object of which is a gradual        European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemein-
examination of active substances placed on the market with a             schaft Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE), of Borken (Federal
view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to that directive.           Republic of Germany), represented by Prof. Matthias Pechstein,
The pleas put forward are as follows:                                    of Berlin.


title: Case T-265/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 –Germany v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Operational programme falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999), concerning the Land Thüringen (Germany))

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/17

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 –Germany v Commission
      (Case T-265/08) (1)

      (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Operational programme falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999), concerning the Land Thüringen (Germany))
      (2012/C 331/28)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, T. Henze, C. Blaschke and K. Petersen, acting as Agents, assisted by U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, subsequently by N. Díaz Abad and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, and finally by A. Rubio González, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries, B. Koopman, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Operational Programme in the Objective 1 area of Land Thüringen (Germany) (1994-1999), in accordance with Commission Decision C(94)1939/5 of 5 August 1994

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

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

         (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-344/09: Action brought on 31 August 2009 — Hearst Communications v OHIM — Vida Estética (COSMOBELLEZA)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/34

         Action brought on 31 August 2009 — Hearst Communications v OHIM — Vida Estética (COSMOBELLEZA)
   (Case T-344/09)
   2009/C 256/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Hearst Communications, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vida Estética, S.L. (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2009 in case R 770/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “COSMOBELLEZA”, for goods and services in classes 35 and 41

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration of the mark “COSMOPOLITAN” registered for goods in class 16; International trade mark registration of the mark “COSMO TEST” registered for goods and services in classes 25, 38 and 41; Portuguese trade mark registration of the mark “COSMO” registered for services in class 41; international trade mark registration of the mark “COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION” registered for goods and services in classes 38 and 41; international trade mark registration of the mark “COSMOPOLITAN” registered for services in classes 35 and 39; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the mark “COSMOPOLITAN” registered for services in classes 35 and 39; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the figurative mark “THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW” registered for services in classes 35 and 41; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the mark “COSMO” registered for services in classes 35 and 41; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the mark “COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION” registered for services in classes 38 and 41; Irish trade mark registration of the mark “COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION” registered for services in classes 38 and 41; well known trade marks “COSMO” and “COSMOPOLITAN” in all the Member States for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41; non-registered trade marks “COSMO” and “COSMOPOLITAN” used in all the Member States for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41, as well as the trade names “COSMO” and “COSMOPOLITAN” used in all the Member States for goods and services in the same classes.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the trade marks concerned are not similar, that the goods and services in question are not similar and thus that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-731/15: Action brought on 12 December 2015 — Klyuyev v Council

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/34

         Action brought on 12 December 2015 — Klyuyev v Council
   (Case T-731/15)
   (2016/C 068/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergiy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, Solicitor, B. Kennelly, Barrister, and T. Garner, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2015/1781/CFSP of 5 October 2015 amending Council Decision 2014/119 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/1777 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base. Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal base for the contested decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine (within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU). As the decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the contested regulation. At the time that the restrictive measures were imposed, there was no charge against the applicant in the context of judicial proceedings that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law, or violated any human rights in Ukraine. The restrictive measures in fact endorse a violation of the rule of law by the Ukrainian authorities in their treatment of the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of appreciation in finding that the applicant satisfied the criterion for listing. The allegations presented to the Council by the prosecutor general's office were excessively generic and unsupported by any (still less ‘concrete’) evidence of any judicial proceedings against the applicant. The applicant pointed out the errors in the allegations in advance of the restrictive measures and the Council failed to obtain answers and the necessary evidence from the Ukrainian authorities. The Council erred in accepting the allegations at face value, not least because of the lack of a judicial process in Ukraine which meets European standards.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. In a re-designation case, the Council has a heightened duty to make full inquiries of the requesting authorities and to provide that information to the designated person. That duty was breached in this instance.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give the applicant sufficient reasons for his inclusion. These reasons given were insufficiently detailed and precise.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council severely infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights to property and reputation. The restrictive measures were imposed without proper safeguards enabling the applicant to put his case effectively to the Council. The restrictive measures are not restricted to any specific property which is said to represent misappropriated state funds or even limited to the amount of funds alleged to have been misappropriated.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that to the extent that the Council is correct that the criteria for designation can extend to any investigation unconnected to judicial proceedings, the criteria are disproportionate and illegal.