title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Council of State by decisions of that court of 29 October 1997 in the following cases: Fromagerie Philipona and Société Fromagerie Franc-Comtoise - Intervener: Institut national des appellations d'origine; Société Fromagerie Lincet, Société Fromagerie d'Epoisses, Yves Chiciak, Société Forster Sàrl, Société Fromagerie Maurice Girard - Interveners: Institut national des appellations d'origine and Société Fromagerie AFT (Joined Cases C-388/97 and C-389/97)

text:
C 7/10                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10. 1. 98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Council              Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling    by     the
of State by decisions of that court of 29 October 1997 in             Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of
the following cases: Fromagerie Philipona and SocieÂteÂ               27 October 1997 in the case of STUAG Bau-
Fromagerie Franc-Comtoise Ð Intervener: Institut national             Aktiengesellschaft against the State Government of
des appellations d'origine; SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Lincet,                          Carinthia (Kärntner Landesregierung)
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie d'Epoisses, Yves Chiciak, SocieÂteÂ                                     (Case C-390/97)
Forster SaÁrl, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Maurice Girard Ð
Interveners: Institut national des appellations d'origine and                                   (98/C 7/23)
                    SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie AFT
            (Joined Cases C-388/97 and C-389/97)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            (98/C 7/22)                               European        Communities        by   order      of      the
                                                                      Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Vienna, of
                                                                      27 October 1997, received at the Court Registry on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                17 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
European Communities by decisions of the French Council               STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v. State Government of
of State of 29 October 1997, which were received at the               Carinthia (Kärntner Landesregierung) on the following
Court Registry on 17 November 1997 for a preliminary                  question:
ruling in the following cases: Fromagerie Philipona and
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Franc-Comtoise Ð Intervener: Institut            Does Article 33 (1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/
national des appellations d'origine (Case C-388/97);                  EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Lincet, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie d'Epoisses,         of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð
Yves Chiciak, SocieÂteÂ Forster SaÁrl, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie           Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
Maurice Girard Ð Interveners: Institut national des                   assessment (1) preclude, on the ground that it is in the
appellations d'origine and SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie AFT (Case             nature of a turnover tax, the maintenance in force of a tax
C-389/97), on the following questions:                                which is payable in a Bundesland (regional state) of a
                                                                      Member State of the European Communities in respect of
1. Following the entry into force            of the Council           each calendar year by all undertakings directly or
     Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14       July 1992 (1) and        indirectly involved in tourism which have their registered
     prior to the entry into force of         Regulation (EC)         office or a place of business within that regional state, and
     No 535/97 of 17 March 1997 (2),          did the national        the amount of which is essentially proportional to the
     authorities lose all competence          in matters of           turnover achieved by the undertaking in that regional state
     designations of origin?                                          within a calendar year, but where the rate of contribution
                                                                      varies according to the degree of benefit which the
                                                                      legislature deems the commercial sector in question
2. May Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 535/97 of                 (occupational group) to derive from tourism, and where
     17 March 1997 be interpreted as retroactively                    no provision is made for the deduction of input tax?
     conferring competence on the national authorities to
     amend the characteristics of a designation which was             (1) OJ L 145, 13. 6. 1977, p. 1.
     in the course of being registered at Community level
     under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
     Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992?
3. In the event that the national authorities have retained
     a subsidiary competence, does that competence enable             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
     them to amend:                                                   Köln by order of that court of 27 October 1997 in the
                                                                      case of Frans Gschwind against Finanzamt Aachen-
     Ð the conditions for production of manufacture of a                                        Aussenstadt
          product covered by a designation which is in the                                   (Case C-391/97)
          course of being registered (Case C-388/97),
                                                                                (98/C 7/24)
     Ð the name of a designation (Case C-389/97)?
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the        European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
    protection of geographical indications and designations of        Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) of 27 October 1997,
    origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208,        received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1997, for
    24. 7. 1992, p. 1).
                                                                      a preliminary ruling in the case of Frans Gschwind v.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of 17 March 1997
    amending Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of         Finanzamt Aachen-Aussenstadt on the following question:
    geographical indications and designations of origin for
    agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 83, 25. 3. 1997,
                                                                      Is it contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty for
    p. 3).
                                                                      Paragraph 1.3, second sentence, in conjunction with
                                                                      Paragraph 1a.1.2 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (German
                                                                      law on income tax; EStG') to provide that a Netherlands


title: Case T-458/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Au Lys de France against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/25

         Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Au Lys de France against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-458/04)
   (2005/C 45/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 November 2004 by Au Lys de France, a company established in Le Raincy (France), represented by G. Lesourd, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 17 September 2004 and all its legal consequences.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant was carrying on a retail business in the terminal at Paris/Charles de Gaulle airport. It lodged a complaint with the Commission relating to abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC by the public undertaking, Aéroports de Paris, on the commercial concessions market in the public airport sector.
   By the contested decision, the Commission notified the applicant that there was no sufficient Community interest in the complaint to justify the opening of a formal investigation.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on error of law and manifest error of assessment in the decision as to the lack of a sufficient Community interest. According to the applicant, the Commission was mistaken in finding the absence of a sufficient interest to pursue the investigation of the case and in deciding that there was sufficient protection of the applicant's rights before the national courts.
   Secondly, the applicant pleads an insufficient statement of reasons in breach of Article 253 EC because the Commission did not deal with various elements of the applicant's arguments.
   Thirdly, the applicant pleads breach of Article 82 EC, because the Commission refused to investigate the complaint whereas, according to the applicant, there is abuse of a dominant position.


title: Action brought on 10 July 1998 by Svend Bech Kristensen against the Council of the European Union (Case T-103/98)

text:
C 299/36              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
CortesaÄo SeicËa Neves) Ð application for the annulment of          Action brought on 10 July 1998 by Svend Bech Kristensen
the Commission decision of 21 December 1994 granting                         against the Council of the European Union
funding under Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of                                        (Case T-103/98)
16 May 1995 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2) for Project
No 94/10/65/005 concerning the construction of a new                                         (98/C 299/65)
road bridge across the Tagus in the Lisbon region of
Portugal Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and                          (Language of the case: French)
M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on
15 July 1998 in which it:
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;            Communities on 10 July 1998 by Svend Bech Kristensen,
                                                                    resident in Waterloo, Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl
2. orders the applicants to bear their own costs and,               Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
    jointly and severally to pay those incurred by the              Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
    Commission;                                                     in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                    30, rue de Cessange.
3. orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 286, 28.10.1995.
(2) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.
                                                                    Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
                                                                        the request for refund of that part of the pension
                                                                        rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
                                                                        which was not taken into consideration in the
                                                                        calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                        account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Staff Regulations,
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                        of 8 July 1998                              Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
in Case T-200/95 X. v. Commission of the European
                       Communities (1)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Officials Ð Time limit for submitting a complaint Ð
                   Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                    The applicant, a Council official of Danish nationality,
                        (98/C 299/64)                               challenges the decision of the Director-General for
                                                                    Administration and Protocol of 6 October 1997 rejecting
                (Language of the case: Greek)                       his request for a refund of that part of the sum paid to the
                                                                    institution by the Danish pension schemes, on the transfer
In Case T-200/95: X., a former official of the Commission           of his pension rights acquired in Denmark, which could
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,                  not be taken into account in the calculation of the number
represented by Georges A. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens            of years of pensionable service to be credited under the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Community pension scheme.
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand'Rue, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Maria
                                                                    In support of his claims he contends:
Condou and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for
annulment of a decision refusing the applicant admission
to the Commission's buildings following the adoption of a           Ð that Article 11(1) and (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
decision removing him from his post and also for                        Regulations has been infringed. Under that provision
compensation for the loss suffered in that connection Ð                 an official is entitled on establishment to have paid to
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,                      the Communities either the actuarial equivalent or the
President of the Chamber, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.                     flat-rate redemption value of retirement pension rights
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on                 acquired before his entry into service. In the
8 July in which it:                                                     applicant's view, that is a mandatory duty not
                                                                        allowing the exercise of any discretion as to the
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                appropriateness of taking into account the whole or
                                                                        part of the amount of the pension rights transferred by
                                                                        the official,
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.                                           Ð that the third indent of Article 10(3) of the general
                                                                        provisions implementing Article 11 of Annex VIII to
                                                                        the Staff Regulations is unlawful inasmuch as it lays
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 299/37
    down a double ceiling on the number of years to be              Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
    credited which is not envisaged by the legislature,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð that unjust enrichment has occurred in this case since,
    by entering as income in the Community budget that              The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
    part of the amount not taken into account under the             raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
    Community pension scheme, the defendant has
    enriched itself without any legal basis.                        (1) See page 36 of this Offical Journal.
Finally, the applicant contends that the principle of equal
treatment has been infringed. The Commission as well as
the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions refund to
officials assigned to their service that part of the amount         Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
of the rights transferred not taken into account in the                        Voitel v. Council of the European Union
Community pension scheme. The Parliament does not                                            (Case T-105/98)
restrict the number of years to be credited and therefore
may take into account a number of years of pensionable                                        (98/C 299/67)
service far exceeding the period of affiliation to national
schemes. Only the Council restricts the years to be                                 (Language of the case: French)
credited and refuses to refund that part of the amount not
taken into account in the Community pension scheme.
The difference in treatment accorded by the various                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
Community institutions to officials who are in the same             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
position thus infringes the prohibition of discrimination.          Communities on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
                                                                    Voitel, of Vossem-Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
                                                                    Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the
                                                                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen
         against the Council of the European Union
                                                                    1. declare the action admissible and well-founded;
                       (Case T-104/98)
                        (98/C 299/66)                               2. allow the action, annul the disputed decision and
                                                                         order the Council to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Council of the European Union was             The applicant, an official employed by the Council,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          challenges that institution's decision of 27 April 1998
Communities on 13 July 1988 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen,                 relating to the procedures whereby officials and employees
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,              of the General Secretariat of the Council may be allowed
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                   access to classified information held by the Council (1).
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        The first citation in the preamble to that decision refers to
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,              Article 151(3) of the Treaty establishing the European
30, rue de Cessange.                                                Community and the third citation refers to the declaration
                                                                    in the Annex to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam
                                                                    on enhanced cooperation between the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         and the Western European Union.
                                                                    The applicant points out that the decision requires that
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing             officials authorised to have access to classified information
    the request for refund of that part of the pension              obtain specific permission which is granted after security
    rights transferred to the Community pensions regime             screening has been carried out by the competent national
    which was not taken into consideration in the                   authorities of the Member States. The decision challenged
    calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into         by the applicant also seeks to impose new obligations and
    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the          confer new prerogatives on the appointing authority and
    Staff Regulations,                                              to limit its jurisdiction.


title: Case C-525/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation — Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation — Refusal to recognise the hallmark — Consumer protection — Proportionality — Admissibility)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-525/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation - Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation - Refusal to recognise the hallmark - Consumer protection - Proportionality - Admissibility))
   (2016/C 419/08)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to recognise the hallmarks of the WaarborgHolland assay office, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 TFEU;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-114/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
   (Case C-114/13)
   2013/C 147/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Theodora Hendrika Bouman

      Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

      Question referred

   Is the part of the AOW benefit which is paid to a Netherlands resident and which is based on an insurance period during which that Netherlands resident, simply by making an application, may refrain from joining the Netherlands scheme and thus from paying the premium, and in fact did so for a limited period, to be regarded as a benefit which is awarded on the basis of a voluntary or optional continued insurance within the meaning of Article 46a(3)(c) of Regulation 1408/71, (1) so that no account may be taken of it when applying the provision against overlapping as laid down in Article 52(1)(1) of the Belgian Koninklijk Besluit van 21 december 1967 tot vaststelling van het algemeen reglement betreffende het rust- en overlevingspensioen voor werknemers.

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 1999 in Case C-96/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas)

text:
4.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 63/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                                                                                costs.
                       of 23 November 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
in Case C-89/96: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Commercial policy — Quantitative
restrictions on imports of textile products — Products                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
originating in India — Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 —
                         Partial withdrawal)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 63/01)                                                          of 25 November 1999
                                                                             in Case C-96/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                             ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                Special protection areas)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/02)
In Case C-89/96: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes
and M. L. Duarte) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. de Pauw and F. de Sousa Fialho) — application for                                    (Language of the case: French)
annulment of Annex V, on cottage industry and folklore
products, to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3053/95 of                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
20 December 1995 amending Annexes I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII,                                 in the European Court Reports)
IX and XI of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on
common rules for imports of certain textile products from                    In Case C-96/98: Commission of the European Communities
third countries (OJ 1995 L 323, p. 1) — the Court, composed                  (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,           Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers),                        cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the special
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,                   measures necessary for the conservation of bird habitats in the
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;                    Marais Poitevin and by failing to take the appropriate steps to
A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   avoid deterioration of those habitats, the French Republic has
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November               failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council
1999, in which it:                                                           Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
                                                                             wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3053/95                 composed of: L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber,
    of 20 December 1995 amending Annexes I, II, III, V, VI, VII,             acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C. Gulmann
    VIII, IX and XI of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 on                (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    common rules for imports of certain textile products from third          N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Princi-
    countries in so far as that provision replaces Annex VI to               pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
    Regulation No 3030/93 by Annex V;                                        25 November 1999, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/2                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              4.3.2000
1. Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed period, to classify       Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     a sufficient area in the Poitevin Marsh as special protection areas,     coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts is
     by failing to adopt measures conferring a sufficient legal status        to be interpreted as permitting a service provider to establish that it
     on the special protection areas classified in the Poitevin Marsh,        fulfils the economic, financial and technical criteria for participation
     and by failing to adopt appropriate measures to avoid deterio-           in a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract by
     ration of the sites in the Poitevin Marsh classified as special          relying on the standing of other entities, regardless of the legal nature
     protection areas and of certain of those which should have been          of the links which it has with them, provided that it is able to show
     so classified, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations  that it actually has at its disposal the resources of those entities which
     under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April               are necessary for performance of the contract. It is for the national
     1979 on the conservation of wild birds;                                  court to assess whether the requisite evidence in that regard has been
                                                                              adduced in the main proceedings.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (First Chamber)
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                                         of 16 December 1999
                          of 2 December 1999                                  in Case C-74/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Østre Landsret): DAT-SCHAUB amba v Ministeriet
in Case C-176/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (1)
the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna):
            Holst Italia SpA v Comune di Cagliari (1)                         (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market — Beef
                                                                              and veal — Export refunds — Beef processed before entering
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Proof of                    the country of import — International agreements — Effects
standing of the service provider — Possibility of relying on                  — Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic
                 the standing of another company)                             Community, of the one part, and the countries parties to the
                                                                              Charter of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of
                                                                                the Gulf, of the other part)
                              (2000/C 63/03)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/04)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-176/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                     in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Regional Adminis-                   In Case C-74/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
trative Court for Sardinia), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Østre Landsret
proceedings pending before that court between Holst Italia                    (Eastern Regional Court), Denmark, for a preliminary ruling in
SpA and Comune di Cagliari, intervener: Ruhrwasser AG                         the proceedings pending before that court between DAT-
International Water Management — on the interpretation of                     SCHAUB amba and Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   Fiskeri — on the interpretation of Article 17(2) of Commission
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  down common detailed rules for the application of the system
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth                 of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351,
Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón,                 p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,                    (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathe-
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                let, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December 1999,                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
in which it has ruled:                                                        16 December 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Joined Cases T-196/11 and T-542/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014  — Mikhalchanka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union — Inclusion and retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Journalist — Action for annulment — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Mikhalchanka v Council
   (Joined Cases T-196/11 and T-542/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union - Inclusion and retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Journalist - Action for annulment - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Partial inadmissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))
   2014/C 388/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aliaksei Mikhalchanka (Minsk, Belorus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: in Case T 196/11, F. Naert and M. M. Joséphidès and, in Case T-542/12, F. Naert and J. P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment in part of Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 40), Council Regulation (EC) No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 17), Council Implementing Decision 2011/174/CFSP of 21 March 2011 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 72), Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 271/2011 of 21 March 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 13), and, second, of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 1014/2012 of 6 November 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7), in so far as all of those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern Mr Mikhalchanka:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision 2011/174/CFSP of 21 March 2011 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 271/2011 of 21 March 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus.

               2.

               Dismisses the Council’s request to maintain the temporal effects of the contested acts.

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               4.

               Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Mikhalchanka.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-253/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 May 2012 — JS v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 May 2012 — JS v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení
   (Case C-253/12)
   2012/C 273/02
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: JS

      Defendant: Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (The Czech social security administration)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems) (2) exclude from its scope ratione personae a citizen of the Czech Republic who, in circumstances such as those of the present case, before 1.1.1993 was subject to the legislation governing pensions insurance of a former State (the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics) and those periods, in accordance with Article 20 of the Agreement on social security concluded on 29.10.1992 between the Czech [Republic] and the Slovak Republic referred to in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council), are regarded as periods under the Slovak Republic and, under the national rules established by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, simultaneously also as periods under the Czech Republic?
               If the answer to question (1) is in the negative:

               2.

               Does Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union and with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (or Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) prevent the authorities in the Czech Republic, in circumstances such as those of the present case, from offering preferential treatment (a supplement to old age benefit where the amount of that benefit granted under Article 20 of the Agreement on social security concluded on 29.10.1992 between the Czech [Republic] and the Slovak Republic and under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (Regulation No 883/2004) is lower than the benefit which would have been received if the retirement pension had been calculated according to the legislation of the Czech Republic) only to citizens of the Czech Republic, where the fundamental right to security in old age interpreted by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic specifically in relation to periods of pension benefit acquired in the former CSFR, and perceived as a part of the national identity, leads to that treatment, and where that treatment is not such as to interfere with the right of freedom of movement for workers as a basic right of the Union, in the situation where offering similar treatment to all other citizens of Member States of the EU who also acquired similar periods of pension benefit in the former CSFR would lead to a significant threat to the financial stability of the Czech Republic’s system of pensions insurance?
               If the answer to question (2) is in the affirmative:

               3.

               Does European Union law prevent the national court, which is the highest court in the State in the field of administrative law and against whose decision there is no right of appeal, from being, in accordance with national law, bound by the legal assessment of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic where that assessment seems not to be in accordance with Union law as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ L 149, p. 2;

      (2)  OJ L 166, p. 1;


title: Case T-199/12: Action brought on 8 May 2012 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/10

         Action brought on 8 May 2012 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission
   (Case T-199/12)
   2012/C 209/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Euro-Link Consultants Ltd (Bucharest, Romania) and European Profiles SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine, dated 28 February 2012, contested in the present action, given in the framework of the tender EuropeAid/131567/C/SER/UA ‘Crimean tourism diversification and support project’; as well as subsequent decisions of the same authority and of the director of the DG Development of the European Commission issued in the subject-matter;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to state reasons, stressing that

                           —

                           case-law and legislation impose a duty on the defendant to elaborate on the advantages of the selected tender clearly, instead of merely contesting the evidence the applicants brought forward; a good administration has to examine and address the allegations correctly, all the more so when various aggravating factors intensify this requirement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to respect the applicable procedure, stressing that

                           —

                           the evaluation procedure the committee followed was vitiated by irregularities, of which the defendant was aware and did not take into account prior to publishing the results. Thus, the subsequent decisions are unlawful, to the extent that they are based on the result of these irregularities.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of equal treatment and misuse of powers, stressing that

                           —

                           the illegal procedure was only applied in the case of the applicants, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. It also appears that the sole purpose of the illegal procedure was to eliminate the applicants from the first place in the evaluation list.


title: Case C-41/12 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Monster Cable Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 November 2011 in Case T-216/10: Monster Cable Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/24

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Monster Cable Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 November 2011 in Case T-216/10: Monster Cable Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited
   (Case C-41/12 P)
   2012/C 73/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Monster Cable Products, Inc. (represented by: O. Günzel, A. Wenninger-Lenz, Rechtsanwältin)

      Otherparties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Live Nation (Music) UK Limited

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should order:

               —

               the judgment of the General court (Fourth Chamber) of the European Union of 23 November 2011 in Case T-216/10 shall be set aside;

               —

               the defendant to pay the costs of the Appellant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that by dismissing the action on the grounds laid down in the Judgment of 23 November 2001, the General Court failed to take account of all the factual background and circumstances of the proceedings, resulting in the Judgment under appeal being based on incomplete facts. Therefore, the Judgment lacks the mandatory overall assessment of all factors that must be taken into account in assessing likelihood of confusion. The Judgment is therefore erroneous and infringes Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No. 40/94 (1).
   In the appellant's view, had a proper overall assessment been made, the General Court would have come to the conclusion that the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 February 2010 violates Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR (2). In summary, the appellant submits that Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No. 40/94 has been infringed for the following reasons:

               Failure to take account of ‘the average specialized consumer in the United Kingdom’ as being the relevant public in relation to which the analysis of the likelihood of confusion must be carried out;

               Misapplication of established legal principles for assessing similarity of goods;

               Violation of the principles according to which, in order to assess likelihood of confusion, consideration should be given to all factors relevant to the individual case and, inter alia, to the distinctive character of the earlier mark.

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

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


title: Case C-169/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
   (Case C-169/07)
   (2007/C 155/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 43 EC (in conjunction with Article 48 EC) preclude the application of national legislation under which authorisation is required to set up a private hospital in the form of an independent outpatient clinic for dental medicine (dental clinic) and that authorisation is to be refused if, according to the stated purpose of the institution and the range of services envisaged, there is no need for the planned outpatient dental clinic having regard to the existing provision of care by established doctors working on a contractual basis with sickness funds, institutions owned by sickness funds and institutions contracted to sickness funds and by established dentists working on a contractual basis with sickness funds?

               2.

               Is the answer to Question 1 any different if the existing provision of care by outpatient clinics of public, private non-profit making and other hospitals working on a contractual basis with sickness funds is also to be included in the examination as to need?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-349/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/77/EC — Markets for electronic communications networks and services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 16 June 2005
   in Case C-349/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/77/EC - Markets for electronic communications networks and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 193/12)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-349/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 August 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to supply the Commission of the European Communities with all the information necessary to allow it to confirm that the provisions of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services have been complied with, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.9.2004.


title: Case T-407/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark HotoGo self-heating can technology — Earlier EU figurative marks representing claws — Relative grounds for refusal — No similarity of the signs — No likelihood of confusion — No connection between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)
      (Case T-407/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark HotoGo self-heating can technology - Earlier EU figurative marks representing claws - Relative grounds for refusal - No similarity of the signs - No likelihood of confusion - No connection between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 454/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and P. Ivanov, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hot-Can Intellectual Property Sdn Bhd (Cheras, Malaysia)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1028/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Hot-Can Intellectual Property.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-61/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/76/EC — Incineration of waste — Failure to transpose)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-61/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 57/23)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-61/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) – Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 February 2004 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


Avis juridique important

|

E1995J0427(02)

Removal from the Register of Case E-4/94

Official Journal C 106 , 27/04/1995 P. 0006 - 0006

Removal from the Register of Case E-4/94 (1) (95/C 106/06)By order of 27 February 1995 the Acting President of the EFTA Court ordered the removal from the Register of Case E-4/94 (request for an advisory opinion from Marknadsdomstolen: Konsumentombudsmannen against De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB).(1) OJ No C 347, 8. 12. 1994.


title: Case T-50/07: Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/44

         Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission
   (Case T-50/07)
   (2007/C 95/91)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Inez Fernandes and P. Barros da Costa, acting as Agents, and M. Figueiredo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1), in so far as it applies to Portugal a financial correction of 5 % in aid for arable crops, in respect of the additional payment for durum wheat, in the sum of EUR 3 945 827,00, under the system created by Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (2);

               —

               as an ancillary matter, annulment of the decision in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic before 16 December 2003, in the sum of EUR 3 231 650,20;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant relies on the following grounds:

               —

               Infringement of the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 1258/99 (3): in this connection the applicant alleges breach of the duty to state reasons and disregard of essential procedural requirements;

               —

               with regard to the late performance of inspections on the spot in the marketing years 2002 and 2003 laid to its charge by the contested decision, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of subsidiarity, breach of the principle of equality of Member States, breach of the principle of proportionality and error as to the factual grounds;

               —

               the applicant also argues that the EAGGF has sustained no financial loss;

               —

               furthermore, the applicant challenges the Commission's finding as to the allegedly insufficient number of site visits regarding durum wheat in 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 160, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).


title: Case T-11/09: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2010 — Özdemir v OHIM — Aktieselskabet af 21 november 2001 (James Jones) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark James Jones — Earlier Community word mark JACK & JONES — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2010 — Özdemir v OHIM — Aktieselskabet af 21 november 2001 (James Jones)
   (Case T-11/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark James Jones - Earlier Community word mark JACK & JONES - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 100/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rahmi Özdemir (Dreieich, Germany) (represented by: I. Hoes, M. Heinrich, C. Schröder, K. von Werder and J. Wittenberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark) (represented by: C. Barrett Christiansen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 858/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 and Rahmi Özdemir.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rahmi Özdemir to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-499/14: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — ERTICO — ITS EUROPE v Commission (Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Criteria for defining micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in European Union policies — Decision of the Validation Panel of the Commission — Withdrawal of the decision — Action becoming devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/18

         Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — ERTICO — ITS EUROPE v Commission
   (Case T-499/14) (1)

   ((Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Criteria for defining micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in European Union policies - Decision of the Validation Panel of the Commission - Withdrawal of the decision - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 221/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport & Services Europe (ERTICO — ITS EUROPE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Validation Panel of the European Commission of 15 April 2014 declaring that the applicant cannot be qualified as a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2)

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and those incurred by European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation - Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (ERTICO — ITS EUROPE).

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-180/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien lodged on  7 April 2006  — Renate Ilsinger v Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of Schlank & Schick GmbH)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien lodged on 7 April 2006 — Renate Ilsinger v Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of Schlank & Schick GmbH)
   (Case C-180/06)
   (2006/C 165/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Renate Ilsinger

      Defendant: Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of Schlank & Schick GmbH)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the provision in Paragraph 5j of the Konsumentenschutzgesetz (Law on consumer protection; KSchG), BGBl 1979/140, in the version of Art I, para. 2 of the Fernabsatz-Gesetz (Law on distance selling), BGBl I 1999/185, which entitles certain consumers to claim from undertakings in the courts prizes ostensibly won by them where the undertakings send (or have sent) them prize notifications or other similar communications worded so as to give the impression that they have won a particular prize, constitute, in circumstances where the claiming of that prize was not made conditional upon actually ordering goods or placing a trial order and where no goods were actually ordered but the recipient of the communication is nevertheless seeking to claim the prize, for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the regulation’ (1) a contractual, or equivalent, claim under Article 15(1)(c) of the regulation?

         If the answer to question 1 is in the negative:

               2.

               Does a claim falling under Article 15(1)(c) of the regulation arise if the claim for payment of the prize was not made conditional upon ordering goods but the recipient of the communication has actually placed an order for goods?

      (1)  OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001, p. 1.


title: Case T-193/17: Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a hip ball)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/37

         Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shape of a hip ball)
   (Case T-193/17)
   (2017/C 161/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark in pink (Shape of a hip ball) — EU trade mark No 10 214 179

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 929/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or, if C5 Medical Werks joins, by the intervener.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 59 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-457/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Fakro v EUIPO — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark climaVera — Earlier EU word mark CLIMAVER DECO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Fakro v EUIPO — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera)
   (Case T-457/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark climaVera - Earlier EU word mark CLIMAVER DECO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 249/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fakro sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by E. Bayo de Gispert, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2015 (Case R 2095/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Saint Gobain Cristalería and Fakro.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Fakro sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case T-16/09 P: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation — Lateness — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/31

         Order of the General Court of 23 March 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-16/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Reasonable time for the submission of a claim for compensation - Lateness - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 148/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-87/07 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present case.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-220/14: Action brought on 2 April 2014  — Saremar v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/50

         Action brought on 2 April 2014 — Saremar v Commission
   (Case T-220/14)
   2014/C 175/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Saremar — Sardegna Regionale Marittima SpA (Caglliari, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, the contested decision in so far as:

                           —

                           it classified the compensation paid for public services pursuant to Regional Law No 15 of 7 August 2012 and the capital finance approved by the general meeting of Saremar’s shareholders on 15 June 2012 as State aid;

                           —

                           it found those measures to be incompatible with the internal market and ordered that they be recovered;

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that Article 4(f) of Decision 2012/21/EU and point 9 of the European Union Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) are unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on are the same as those put forward in Case T-219/14 Regione della Sardegna v Commission.


title: Case T-111/11: Action brought on 21 February 2011 — ClientEarth v Commission

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/16

         Action brought on 21 February 2011 — ClientEarth v Commission
   (Case T-111/11)
   2011/C 130/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the Commission in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

               —

               declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1367/2006 (1);

               —

               declare the Commission in violation of Regulation No 1049/2001 (2);

               —

               annul the implied decision under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which is the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time-limits to the applicants confirmatory application by which the Commission withheld the requested documents; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Articles 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 for not replying within the prescribed time-limits to the applicant’s confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(1)(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters for failure to provide the applicant access to the requested conformity-checking studies and implementation action plans and to provide detailed reasons to do so. The contested decision also violates Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 for failure to interpret the exceptions provided under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 1367/2006 for not disseminating the requested information in the registers of the Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 7 of Regulation No 1367/2006 for not informing the applicant to which Directorate General it should request to have access to the documents concerning Directives 1998/81/EC (3) and 2001/18/EC (4) or transferring the request to the relevant Directorate General.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001 for failure to provide the applicant access to the requested conformity-checking studies and implementation action plans. The disclosure of the requested documents would not undermine the protection of the purpose of investigations under Article 4(2) or prevent the proper conduct of potential infringement procedures based on Article 258 of the TFEU. The contested decision violates Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 for failure to provide partial access to the requested documents.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation No 1049/2001. The disclosure of the requested documents would not seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(2) last indent and Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 for failure to assess whether there is an overriding public interest in disclosure and to provide a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal.

      (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)

      (3)  Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13)

      (4)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1)


title: Action brought on 18 September 1998 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-342/98)

text:
7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 340/11
In addition to the infringement of those basic provisions,           The appellant claims that the Court should:
the Council has breached the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations.
                                                                     Ð set aside the judgment delivered in Case T-27/97;
Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    It is indisputable that even acts of general application,
    such as regulations, must provide a sufficient
    statement of the reasons on which they are based,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    especially with regard to provisions directly
    concerning the interests of separate recognisable
    classes of traders (such as, in this case, Italian beet          Breach of Community law by the Court of First Instance
    growers).                                                        in its assessment of the pleas in law and arguments relied
                                                                     on in Case T-72/97 (1).
    Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 states no reasons for
    fixing the derived intervention price for five other
                                                                     (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997, p. 16.
    Member States but not for Italy. Nor are any reasons
    provided in Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 in respect of
    the fixing of the intervention price.
Ð Breach of the principle of equal treatment:
    Whilst Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 failed            Action brought on 18 September 1998 by Commission of
    to fix the derived intervention price for white sugar            the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
    for Italy, it confirmed that price for the United                                         Luxembourg
    Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Spain.
                                                                                (Case C-342/98)
    Albeit unaware of the reasons which led to Italy's                                       (98/C 340/19)
    being denied a derived intervention price and of the
    reasons for which that price was confirmed for the
    other Member States, the Italian Government must
                                                                     An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
    claim that the Council has breached the principle of
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    equality and afforded it unequal treatment.
                                                                     Communities on 18 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities, represented by GeÂrard
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 3.                                     Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 1.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                     Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                     that the Court should:
Appeal brought on 17 September 1998 by Proderec Ð
FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos ACE                 Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the                     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Case T-72/97 between Proderec                     Commission Directive 95/33/EC of 10 July 1995,
Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos                        amending Council Directive 82/471/EEC concerning
  ACE and the Commission of the European Communities                      certain products used in animal nutrition (1),
                      (Case C-341/98 P)                                   Commission Directive 95/44/EC of 26 July 1995
                                                                          establishing the conditions under which certain
                        (98/C 340/18)
                                                                          harmful organisms, plants, plant products and other
                                                                          objects listed in Annexes I to V to Council Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998                  77/93/EEC may be introduced into or moved within
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                   the Community for trial or scientific purposes or for
the European Communities in Case T-72/97 between                          work on varietal selections (2) and Commission
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       Directive 96/78/EC of 6 December 1996 amending
Humanos ACE and the Commission of the European                            certain Annexes to Council Directive 77/93/EEC on
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                    protective measures against the introduction into the
the European Communities on 17 September 1998 by                          Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       products and against their spread within the
Humanos ACE, represented by Manuel Rodrigues, of the                      Community (3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
care of Luísa Maria Miranda Sousa Pires, 4a rue Jean                      Directive 95/33/EC, Article 4 of Directive 95/44/EC
JaureÁs.                                                                  and Article 2 of Directive 96/78/EC;
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.11.98
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                    provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
     costs.                                                         to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
put forward in Case C-335/98; the time-limits prescribed
by the directives expired on 30 June 1996, 1 February
1996 and 1 January 1997 respectively.                               Action brought on 22 September 1998 by Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
(1) OJ L 167 of 18.7.1995, p. 17.                                                               Belgium
(2) OJ L 184 of 3.8.1995, p. 34.                                                            (Case C-347/98)
(3) OJ L 321 of 2.12.1996, p. 20.
                                                                                (98/C 340/21)
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 22 September 1998 by the Commission of the
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission               European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
       of the European Communities against Ireland                  Gouloussis and Peter Hillencamp, acting as Agents, with
                                                                    an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                       (Case C-346/98)                              Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (98/C 340/20)
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 September                 Ð declare that, by levying personal contributions of
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     13,07 % on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                      payable to persons who do not reside in Belgium and
Adviser, and Michael Shotter, a national official seconded              who are no longer subject to the Belgian social
to the Commission under an arrangement for the                          security system, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for            fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Council
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1);
Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
Centre Wagner.                                                      Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Persons who no longer work in an employed or self-
Ð declare that by failing to adopt and publish the laws,
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to           employed capacity in Belgium and who have transferred
                                                                    their residence to another Member State are exclusively
    comply with Directive 94/60/EC of the European
                                                                    subject to the laws of that Member State. Consequently,
    Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994
    amending for the fourteenth time Council Directive              the Belgian authorities are not authorised to levy
                                                                    contributions on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
    76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
    regulations and administrative provisions of the                payable to persons who are in such a situation.
    Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances (1),          Belgium wrongly refers to the benefits payable under
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,             Article 52 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to persons
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that         who sustain an accident at work or who contract an
    Directive; and                                                  occupational disease. Those benefits are not sickness
                                                                    benefits within the meaning of the first chapter of the
                                                                    regulation; they constitute other benefits in kind which are
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   specifically designed to meet needs arising from accidents
                                                                    at work or occupational diseases. Unlike the rule laid
                                                                    down in Article 33, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EEC)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    No 1408/71 contains no provision enabling the competent
                                                                    State to levy contributions in order to finance benefits
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall         payable as a result of an accident at work or an
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each              occupational disease.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid             (1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
down in the directive. That period expired on
20 December 1995 without Ireland having enacted the


title: Case T-882/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/25

         Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)
   (Case T-882/16)
   (2017/C 046/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sipral World, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Dolfina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DOLFINA’ — EU trade mark application No 3 701 828

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1897/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervening party, LA DOLFINA S.A., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Second Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 15, 42, 51, 75, 78 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rules 22 and 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-485/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2016 — Alsharghawi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Freezing of funds — List of persons subject to restrictions on entry into and transit through EU territory — Functions of the former head of cabinet of Muammar Qadhafi — Choice of legal basis — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality — Freedom of movement — Right to property — Obligation to justify the merits of the measure)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2016 — Alsharghawi v Council
   (Case T-485/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya - Freezing of funds - List of persons subject to restrictions on entry into and transit through EU territory - Functions of the former head of cabinet of Muammar Qadhafi - Choice of legal basis - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Freedom of movement - Right to property - Obligation to justify the merits of the measure))
   (2016/C 402/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part, firstly, of Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 34) and, secondly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1323 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2015 L 206, p. 4).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/1

         2010/C 100/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 80, 27.3.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 63, 13.3.2010

      OJ C 51, 27.2.2010

      OJ C 37, 13.2.2010

      OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

      OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

      OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu