title: Case T-71/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2015 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SWATCHBALL — Community word and figurative marks and international word and figurative marks SWATCH and swatch — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2015 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)
   (Case T-71/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SWATCHBALL - Community word and figurative marks and international word and figurative marks SWATCH and swatch - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 213/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Panavision Europe Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2013 (Case R 470/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Swatch AG and Panavision Europe Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Swatch AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case C-514/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — HIT Groep BV v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Upper limit of the fine — Total turnover in the ‘preceding business year’ — Reference to a business year other than the one preceding the adoption of the contested decision — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/9

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — HIT Groep BV v European Commission
      (Case C-514/15 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Upper limit of the fine - Total turnover in the ‘preceding business year’ - Reference to a business year other than the one preceding the adoption of the contested decision - Principle of proportionality))
      (2016/C 364/03)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Appellant: HIT Groep BV (represented by: G. van der Wal and L. Parret, advocaten)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Hit Groep BV shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/23

         Removal from the register of Case C-100/04 (1)

   (2005/C 93/46)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 13 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-100/04 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Italy.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Case F-123/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Bancale and Buccheri v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/67

         Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Bancale and Buccheri v Commission
   (Case F-123/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/134
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Giovanni Bancale (Waterloo, Belgium) and Roberto Buccheri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the selection board decisions in the competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 not to admit the applicants to the competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare unlawful section 4 of Title III of competition notice EPSO/COM/INT/OLAF09, in that it prohibits taking into account university level experience obtained prior to the obtaining of a university qualification;

               —

               annul the decisions excluding the applicants from the competition EPSO/COM/INT/OLAF/09;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-87/04: Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
3.4.2004              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 85/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Communities, represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre,
                                                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 20 April 2003.                                            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                     the Court should:
(1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.                                    1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                           Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                                                                           winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
                                                                           event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission                       Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                         its obligations under that directive;
                             Belgium
                                                                     2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-87/04)
                        (2004/C 85/40)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The period for transposition of the directive expired on
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                 20 April 2003.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European                   (1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.


title: Case T-259/16: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/60

         Order of the General Court of 14 November 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)
   (Case T-259/16) (1)

   (2017/C 022/80)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-296/12: Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Health Food Manufacturer’s Association and Others v Commission

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/19

         Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Health Food Manufacturer’s Association and Others v Commission
   (Case T-296/12)
   2012/C 250/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: The Health Food Manufacturer’s Association (East Molesey, United Kingdom); Quest Vitamins Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Natures Aid Ltd (Kirkham, United Kingdom); Natuur- & gezonheidsProducten Nederland (Ermelo, Netherlands); et New Care Supplements BV (Oisterwijk, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Kelly and G. Castle, Solicitors, and P. Bogaert, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ L 136, p. 1);

               —

               Annul Commission Decision of 16 May 2012 adopting a list of permitted health claims and creating a list of so-called on-hold health claims that are neither rejected nor authorised by the Commission;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is illegal for the following reasons:

               1.

               First plea in law, that

                           —

                           the adoption of a permitted list of general function health claims while keeping certain claims under the transitional measures of Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (i.e. splitting the assessment process and adopting a partial list of claims under article 13(1)) lacks any legal basis. It further infringes the principles of good administration, legal certainty and non-discrimination for a number of reasons, including: there was no justification for the splitting of the process; the split lacked transparency; there was no consultation or adequate reasons given for the split; some claims are put ‘on-hold’ and continue to benefit from the existing transitional periods under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (despite the legal uncertainty of those transitional periods).

               2.

               Second plea in law, that

                           —

                           the non-inclusion of many health claims in the permitted list infringes Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 by applying improper assessment criteria, infringes the principle of good administration, legal certainty and the duty of collaboration with national food authorities and the obligation to provide adequate reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, that

                           —

                           if the pleas submitted above are not upheld, the applicants allege that the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 itself is void because of breach of the right to be heard and breach of legal certainty. The illegality of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is invoked in this application pursuant to Article 277 TFEU and supports the illegality of Regulation (EU) No 432/2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam by order of that court of 30 October 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Florus Ariël Wijsenbeek (Case C-378/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97                                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 387/ 11
          regarded as unlawful solely as regards that granted               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
          on or after 1 July 1990 .                                         Commerce ( Second Chamber), Tournai, by judgment of
                                                                            that court of 30 October 1997 in the case of General
(') Concerning aid granted to the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region in                         Motors Corporation v. Yplon SA
       favour of road hauliers of that region.                                                     ( Case C-375/97 )
( 2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1979 ( II ), p. 360 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/17 )
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                            Commerce ( Second Chamber), Tournai, of 30 October
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerische                        1997, received at the Court Registry on 3 November
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of                            1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of General
20 October 1997 in the case of Anton Feyrer v. Landkreis                    Motors Corporation v. Yplon SA on the following
Rottal-Inn ( also party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern as                       question:
                 representative of the public interest )
                              Case C-374/97                                 On reading Article 13 A ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Uniform Benelux
                              ( 97/C 387/ 16 )                              Law introduced pursuant to the amending protocol in
                                                                            force since 1 January 1996, what is the proper
                                                                            construction of the term 'repute of the trade mark ' and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      may it also be said that such 'repute' applies throughout
European Communities by order of the Bayerische                             the Benelux countries or to part thereof?
Verwaltungsgerichtshof ( Bavarian Administrative Court )
of 20 October 1997, received at the Court Registry on
3 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Anton Feyrer v. Landkreis Rottal-Inn, represented by the
Landrat ( also party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern as
representative of the public interest) on the following                     Reference      for a preliminary ruling by the
questions:                                                                  Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam by order of that
                                                                            court of 30 October 1997 in the criminal proceedings
 1 . Can an individual oppose the collection of fees higher                                against Florus Ariel Wijsenbeek
        than the standard amounts listed in point 1 of the                                          ( Case C-378/97 )
        annex relating to Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 85/                                    ( 97/C 387/ 18 )
        73/EEC (') as amended by Council Directive 93/ 118/
        EC ( 2 ) where the Member State has not transposed
        Directive 93/ 118/EC into national law within the
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        prescribed period ?                                                 European Communities by an order of the
                                                                            Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ) Rotterdam of
 2 . Can a Member State collect fees higher than the                        30 October 1997, received at the Court Registry on
        standard amounts in reliance in point 4 ( b ) of the                5 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
        annex relating to Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 85/          proceedings against Florus Ariel Wijsenbeek on the
        73/EEC as amended by Directive 93/ 118/EC provided                  following questions :
        that the fees levied do not exceed the actual costs, no
        further conditions being imposed ?                                  Are the second paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            which provides that the internal market is to comprise an
                                                                            area without internal frontiers in which the free movement
 3 . Is the authorization given to Member States under
        Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council Directive 85/73/EEC as                   of persons is ensured, and Article 8a of the EC Treaty,
        amended by Directive 93/ 118/EEC to collect an                      which confers on all citizens of the Union the right to
        amount exceeding the Community fees dependent on                    move and reside freely within the territory of the Member
        the total fee collected in the Member State as a whole               States, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
        and the actual inspection costs in the Member State as               of a Member State imposing an obligation, accompanied
        a whole or is it sufficient, when the Member State has               by criminal penalties for failure to comply, on persons
        delegated authorization to collect the fees to the local             ( whether or not citizens of the European Union ) to present
         authorities, that the total fee collected by the local              a passport on entry into a Member State whenever that
         authority is not greater than the actual inspection                 person enters the Member State through the national
        costs of that authority ?                                            airport coming from another Member State ?
 (') OJ L 32, 5 . 2 . 1985 , p . 14 .                                        Does any other provision of Community law preclude
 ( 2 ) OJ L 340 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 15 .                                  such an obligation ?


title: Case T-425/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/46

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius)
   (Case T-425/16)
   (2016/C 343/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Karl Hoffmann (Bad Schwalbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Genius’ — Application No 13 509 071

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2016 in Case R 1631/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-553/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 October 2015 — Undis Servizi Srl v Comune di Sulmona

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 October 2015 — Undis Servizi Srl v Comune di Sulmona
   (Case C-553/15)
   (2016/C 027/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Undis Servizi Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Sulmona

      Questions referred

               1.

               When the ‘essential activity’ undertaken by the controlled body is assessed, must an activity imposed on it by a non-shareholder public administration and undertaken in favour of non-shareholder public bodies also be taken into account?

               2.

               When the ‘essential activity’ undertaken by the controlled body is assessed, must the contracts awarded to shareholder public bodies before the requirement of ‘similar control’ became applicable also be taken into account?


title: Case C-163/06 P: Order of the Court of 21 June 2007 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Actions for annulment — Inadmissibility — Act without binding legal effect — Own resources of the European Communities — Infringement proceedings — Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Default interest — Negotiation of an agreement concerning a conditional payment — Letters of refusal)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/8

         Order of the Court of 21 June 2007 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-163/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Actions for annulment - Inadmissibility - Act without binding legal effect - Own resources of the European Communities - Infringement proceedings - Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Default interest - Negotiation of an agreement concerning a conditional payment - Letters of refusal)
   (2007/C 235/12)
   Language of the case: Finish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2006 in Case T-177/05 Republic of Finland v Commission dismissing as inadmissible the action for annulment of a Commission decision allegedly contained in two letters of the Commission by which it refused to enter into negotiations on the conditional payment of retroactive customs duties claimed by the Commission as own resources of the Community (duties on imports of military equipment)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2002 in Case T-233/01: Daniel Caillebout v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Absence of definitive staff report — Consideration of the comparative merits)

text:
C 233/22                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.9.2002
                                                            COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2002
                             of 9 July 2002
                                                                              in Case T-233/01: Daniel Caillebout v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-70/01: Pier V. Aimone v Court of Justice of the                     (Officials — Promotion — Absence of definitive staff report
                    European Communities ( 1)                                            — Consideration of the comparative merits)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/41)
(Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Refusal to
reintegrate — Automatic dismissal — Articles 40(4)(d)                                             (Language of the case: French)
      and 49, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                              In Case T-233/01: Daniel Caillebout, an official of the Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities, residing in Mondorf-
                            (2002/C 233/40)                                   les-Bains (Luxembourg), represented by J.-N. Louis and
                                                                              V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                          C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the
                                                                              decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000 not to
                                                                              promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2000 promotions
                                                                              procedure — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                              composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
                                                                              Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                              judgment on 9 July 2002, in which it:
In Case T-70/01: Pier V. Aimone, a former official at the Court
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Fribourg                  1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000 not
(Switzerland), represented by R. Ventura, lawyer, against Court                      to promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2000 promotions
of Justice of the European Communities (Agents: M. Schauss                           procedure;
et A. Dal Ferro) — application for, first, annulment of the
decision of the Court of Justice of 22 May 2000 automatically                 2.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
removing the official from his post with effect from 1 June
2000 and, secondly, compensation to make good the non-
material and psycho-physiological damage allegedly suffered                   (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July 2002, in
which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 June 2002
1.     dismisses the application for annulment;
                                                                              in Case T-173/01: Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.     dismisses the claim for compensation;
                                                                              (Authorisation of an additive in animal feedingstuffs — No
3.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                                         need to rule)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/42)
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                                      (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                              In Case T-173/01: Asahi Vet SA, established in Barcelona
                                                                              (Spain), represented by C. Bittner, Lawyer, against Commission


               10.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/7

         Action brought on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-22/15)
   (2015/C 410/06)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider, Clémence Perrin and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products and Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Acts and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 11 April 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 11 February 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products,

               and

                  Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance, as referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Acts and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-590/11: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — S & S Szlegiel Szlegiel i Wiśniewski v OHIM — Scotch & Soda (SODA)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/69

         Order of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — S & S Szlegiel Szlegiel i Wiśniewski v OHIM — Scotch & Soda (SODA)
   (Case T-590/11) (1)

   2013/C 26/137
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-476/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Principle of non-discrimination — Collective agreement providing for a dependent child allowance — Calculation of allowance paid to part-time workers in accordance with the principle of pro rata temporis)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers
   (Case C-476/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Principle of non-discrimination - Collective agreement providing for a dependent child allowance - Calculation of allowance paid to part-time workers in accordance with the principle of pro rata temporis))
   (2015/C 007/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

      Defendant: Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that the principle pro rata temporis applies to the calculation of the amount of a dependent child allowance paid by an employer to a part-time worker pursuant to a collective agreement such as that applicable to the employees of Austrian banks and bankers.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case T-39/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (PUCCI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PUCCI — Earlier national figurative and word marks Emidio Tucci and E. TUCCI — Application for the earlier Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (PUCCI)
   (Case T-39/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PUCCI - Earlier national figurative and word marks Emidio Tucci and E. TUCCI - Application for the earlier Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 355/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by E. López Camba, J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela and, subsequently, by J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Emilio Pucci International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2009 (Case R 173/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Emilio Pucci International BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-150/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt, Sweden): Svenska Staten v Stockholm Lindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Practice of sport or physical education)

text:
19.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 18 January 2001                                                          of 18 January 2001
in Case C-113/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  in Case C-150/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)): Herta Schmid v                      the Svea Hovrätt, Sweden): Svenska Staten v Stockholm
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und                       Lindöpark AB and between Stockholm Lindöpark AB and
                            Burgenland (1)                                                            Svenska Staten (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of                   (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
        capital — Minimum tax on capital companies)                        — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —
                                                                           Exemptions — Letting of immovable property — Practice of
                                                                                sport or physical education)
                           (2001/C 150/08)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/09)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-113/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsger-                In Case C-150/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Svea Hovrätt
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                (Svea Court of Appeal), Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the
Herta Schmid, acting as insolvency administrator for P.P. Hand-            proceedings pending before that court between Svenska Staten
els GmbH, in liquidation, and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,              (Swedish State) and Stockholm Lindöpark AB and between
Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on the interpretation of                 Stockholm Lindöpark AB and Svenska Staten (Swedish State)
Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969                 — on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(m) and
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English           Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council                  17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23)                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,                     added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and                    — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
N. Colneric, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,              acting as President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which               L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
it has ruled:                                                              Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it has ruled:
On its proper construction, Article 10 of Council Directive
69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the                1.    The provisions of Article 13A(1)(m) and 13B(b) of the Sixth
raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of                Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying, as against insolvent                harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
capital companies lacking own revenue or whose annual revenue does               turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
not exceed a certain amount, of a minimum tax, such as that at issue             basis of assessment, preclude national legislation from providing
in the main proceedings, payable for each quarter in respect of which            for a general exemption from value added tax for the supply of
those companies have unlimited liability to corporation tax.                     premises and other facilities and the related supply of accessories
                                                                                or other arrangements for the practice of sport or physical
                                                                                education, including services supplied by profit-making organis-
                                                                                ations.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.06.1999.
                                                                           2.    The provisions of Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388,
                                                                                read together with those of Articles 2, 6(1) and 13B(b), are
                                                                                sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional for an individual to
                                                                                rely on them as against a Member State before a national court.
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.5.2001
3.    The implementation of a general exemption from value added            —     time which a driver necessarily spends travelling to take over a
      tax for the supply of premises and other facilities and for the             vehicle subject to the obligation to instal and use a tachograph
      related supply of accessories or other arrangements for the                 and which is not at the driver’s home or the employer’s
      purposes of the practice of sport or physical education, where no           operational centre, regardless of whether the employer gave
      such exemption is to be found in Article 13 of Directive                    instructions as to when and how to travel or whether that choice
      77/388, constitutes a serious breach of Community law that                  was left to the driver;
      can render a Member State liable in damages.
                                                                            —     periods of driving spent by a driver whilst performing a
                                                                                transport service falling outside the scope of Regulation
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.07.1999.                                                        No 3821/85 before taking over a vehicle to which that
                                                                                regulation applies.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 18 January 2001                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-297/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                              (Fifth Chamber)
the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court): criminal proceedings
against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley                                           of 18 January 2001
                         and B. Denman (1)
                                                                            in Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communi-
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Tachograph                              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
record sheets — Obligation to record periods of work, breaks
                     in work and rest periods)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                                97/13/EC)
                          (2001/C 150/10)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/11)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-297/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and                                          in the European Court Reports)
B. Denman — on the interpretation of Article 15 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on                          In Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities
recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8)                 (Agent: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                    P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann               bring into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate                     provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                     Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which                Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for
it has ruled:                                                               general authorisations and individual licences in the field of
                                                                            telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15), the
                                                                            Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
On a proper construction of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC)          of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in                    D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;
road transport, a driver’s obligation to record all other periods of        P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
work extends to:                                                            judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-102/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — PostNL Holding (TPG POST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TPG POST — Earlier national and Community word marks POST and Deutsche Post — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Deutsche Post v OHIM — PostNL Holding (TPG POST)
   (Case T-102/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TPG POST - Earlier national and Community word marks POST and Deutsche Post - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 213/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: PostNL Holding BV (The Hague, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 (Case R 2108/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between PostNL Holding BV and Deutsche Post AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case T-108/07: Action brought on 8 April 2007 — Spira v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/20

         Action brought on 8 April 2007 — Spira v Commission
   (Case T-108/07)
   (2007/C 129/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA (Antwerpen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven, F. Louis and A. Vallery, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 26 January 2007, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 773/2004, in case COMP/38.826/B-2 — Spira/De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 26 January 2007 in competition Case COMP/38.826/B-2 — Spira/De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice, by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint regarding violations of Articles 81 and 82 EC in connection with the Supplier of Choice system applied by the De Beers Group for the distribution of rough diamonds, with the reasoning that there is not sufficient Community interest to act further on the applicant's complaint.
   The applicant alleges that De Beers — a producer of rough diamonds who, according to the applicant, was mainly involved upstream with the sale of rough diamonds — is trying through its Supplier of Choice system to extend its control of the market to cover the entire diamond pipeline from mine to consumer, i.e. also the downstream markets.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.
   Firstly, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to honour its duty to conduct a careful and impartial investigation of the complaint and to examine with proper care and impartiality the anticompetitive practices denounced in the complaint.
   Secondly, the applicant alleges that the Commission could not claim that there was a lack of sufficient Community interest to act on the complaint, in light of the size of the undertaking involved, the geographic scope of the anticompetitive practices and the damage to competition and the internal market caused by the infringements.
   Thirdly and finally, the applicant submits that the Commission concluded to the absence of sufficient Community interest on the basis of an erroneous assessment, in fact and in law, of the circumstances of the case since:

               1)

               the Commission failed to take into account the manifest publicly stated anticompetitive object of De Beers' limited selective distribution system;

               2)

               the Commission could not assess the anticompetitive effects of the De Beers' distribution system without first assessing De Beers' dominance and market power;

               3)

               the Commission failed to take into account the numerous elements brought to its attention in the complaint demonstrating the inherently abusive and anticompetitive nature of the system;

               4)

               the Commission wrongly assessed the effectiveness of the revised Terms of Reference for the Ombudsman that De Beers had introduced to resolve disputes as to the implementation of the distribution system; and

               5)

               the Commission made an error of law and a manifest error of assessment of the facts in finding that De Beers' distribution system does not foreclose the market.


title: Case F-130/06: Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Sotgia v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/86

         Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Sotgia v Commission
   (Case F-130/06)
   (2006/C 326/173)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the individual decision concerning a transfer from temporary staff status to official status taking effect on 16 April 2006, notified on 2 May 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, after having worked at the Commission for several years as a member of temporary staff in Grade A5, then A*11, was successful in open competition EPSO/A/18/04 to draw up a reserve list for administrators in career bracket A7/A6. As a result, he was appointed as an official in the same post he had occupied as a member of the temporary staff and classified in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations.
   In support of his action, the applicant invokes infringement of Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant moreover submits infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of the protection of acquired rights and the principle of equal treatment.


title: Joined Cases C-290/05 and C-333/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bács-Kiskun Megyei Bíróság and the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Ákos Nádasdi v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-290/05), Ilona Németh v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-333/05) (Internal taxation — Registration duty on motor vehicles — Used motor vehicles — Importation)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bács-Kiskun Megyei Bíróság and the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — Ákos Nádasdi v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-290/05), Ilona Németh v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-333/05)
   (Joined Cases C-290/05 and C-333/05) (1)

   (Internal taxation - Registration duty on motor vehicles - Used motor vehicles - Importation)
   (2006/C 294/27)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring courts
   Bács-Kiskun Megyei Bíróság and Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ákos Nádasdi (C-290/05) and Ilona Németh (C-333/05)

      Defendants: Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-290/05) and Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-333/05)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Art. 90 EC — Registration duty charged on motor vehicles when they are first placed in circulation in the Member State which is not charged on used motor vehicles placed in circulation in the Member State before 1 February 2004 and which is calculated independently of the value of the motor vehicle
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               A tax such as that imposed in Hungary by Law No CX of 2003 on registration duty (a regisztrációs adóról szóló 2003. évi CX. törvény), which does not apply to private motor vehicles by reason of the fact that they cross the frontier, does not constitute a customs duty on imports or a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Articles 23 EC and 25 EC.

               2)

               The first paragraph of Article 90 EC has to be interpreted as precluding a tax such as that imposed by the Law on registration duty in so far as

                           —

                           it is charged on used vehicles when they are first placed in circulation in the territory of a Member State, and

                           —

                           its amount, which is determined exclusively by the vehicles' technical characteristics (engine type, engine capacity) and their environmental classification, is calculated without taking the depreciation of the vehicles into account, in such a way that, when applied to used vehicles imported from other Member States, it exceeds the amount of that duty included in the residual value of similar used vehicles which have already been registered in the Member State of importation.

                     A comparison with used vehicles placed into circulation in the Member State in question before the introduction of that duty is not relevant.

               3)

               Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, does not preclude the levy of a tax such as that imposed by the Law on registration duty for which turnover is not the basis of assessment and which does not give rise, in trade between Member States, to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

      OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case T-37/00: Action brought on 24 February 2000 by Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue against the Council of the European Union

text:
29.4.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/39
Action brought on 21 February 2000 by Eurocool Logistik                 Action brought on 24 February 2000 by Yannick Cheva-
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                         lier-Delanoue against the Council of the European Union
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-37/00)
                         (Case T-34/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/60)
                        (2000/C 122/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          Communities on 24 February 2000 by Yannick Chevalier-Del-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 anoue, residing at Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  sanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
21 February 2000 by Eurocool Logistik GmbH, Linz, Republic              service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société de Gestion
of Austria, represented by Dr. Günther Secklehner, Phyrnstras-          Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
se 1, Liezen, Republic of Austria.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul Council Decision 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999
                                                                             laying down the detailed arrangements for the integration
— annul decision R233/1999-1 of the Board of Appeal of                       of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of
    9 December 1999, confirming the decision of 11 March                     the Council;
    1999 and refer the mark back to the Office for registration
    to proceed;
                                                                        — annul the decision to appoint Ms R. to an LA 5 post in the
                                                                             French Division of the Translation Service of the Council;
— in the alternative, partially annul the decision of the Board
    of Appeal referred to at indent one above and refer the             — annul the implied consecutive decision not to appoint the
    mark back to the Office for registration to proceed on the               applicant to such a post;
    basis of a limited designation of goods;
                                                                        — order the defendant to draw all the necessary legal
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure,                     consequences as regards the reinstatement of the appli-
    including the costs of the procedure before the Board of                 cant’s rights;
    Appeal.
                                                                        — failing that, order the defendant to pay compensation for
                                                                             the damage suffered, both material and non-material,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              provisionally quantified at 1 euro, plus-interest charged for
                                                                             late payment as from 1 May 1999;
Trade mark                    Word mark ‘EUROCOOL’ —                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                              application no. 285536
Goods or services             Goods and services in classes 39          Pleas in law and main arguments
                              and 42 (including storage and
                              transport of goods, especially
                                                                        The applicant is an official in the French Translation Division
                              refrigerated and deep frozen
                                                                        of the Language Service of the Council. He contests the
                              goods; setting up logistical sys-
                                                                        appointment of a former member of staff in the Schengen
                              tems for the transport and storage
                                                                        Secretariat to an LA 5 post in the division to which he is
                              of such goods)
                                                                        assigned. That decision of appointment includes an implied
                                                                        decision not to appoint the applicant to such a post and
Decision         contested    Refusal to register by the Exam-          constitutes an individual measure implementing Decision
before the Board of           iner                                      1999/307/EC. In his application, the applicant pleads the
Appeal                                                                  illegality of that decision and of the individual decisions taken
                                                                        by the Council.
Pleas in law relied on        — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation No 40/94
                                                                        In support of his claim for the annulment of Decision
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)         1999/307, the applicant pleads:
                                  of Regulation No 40/94
                                                                        — infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol integrating the
                                                                             Schengen acquis into the framework of the European
                                                                             Union;
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/40               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.4.2000
— infringement of Articles 4 and 27 to 29 of the Staff                   — order the defendant to give all due legal effect to the
    Regulations;                                                             reestablishment of the rights of the applicant;
— a mistake of law consisting in the absence of any objective            — otherwise, order the defendant to make good both the
    justification for using the date of 2 October 1997 as a                  material and non-material damage suffered, provisionally
    criterion for taking into consideration the persons working              evaluated at EUR 1, together with default interest as from
    in the Schengen Secretariat for the purposes of their being              1 May 1999;
    integrated into the General Secretariat of the Council;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
— breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
— infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and of              Pleas in law and main arguments
    the interest of the service.
                                                                         The applicant passed competition LA/365 of the Council with
                                                                         a view to the setting-up of a list for the recruitment of
As regards the annulment of the individual decisions, the                Portuguese mother-tongue translators. She challenges the
applicant pleads:                                                        decisions to appoint four former agents of the Schengen
                                                                         Secretariat to LA 7 posts in the Portuguese division of the
— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;                    Council’s Language Service. Those appointments imply a
                                                                         decision to refuse to take into account the applicant’s candi-
— breach of the principle of having regard for the welfare of            dature and constitute individual measures implementing
    officials and of the principle of sound management.                  Decision 1999/307/EC. In her application, the applicant
                                                                         alleges the unlawfulness of the decision and of the individual
                                                                         decisions taken by the Council.
                                                                         The arguments put forward by the applicant are similar to
                                                                         those put forward in Case T-37/00.
Action brought on 24 February 2000 by Virginia Joaquim
       Matos against Council of the European Union
                         (Case T-38/00)
                                                                         Action brought on 28 February 2000 by Javier Martinez
                                                                         Lara and Milva Urbán Penón against the Council of the
                        (2000/C 122/61)                                                         European Union
                                                                                (Case T-43/00)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/62)
An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 24 February 2000 by Virgı́nia Joaquim Matos, residing in                                (Language of the case: French)
Montijo, Portugal, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue                An action against the Council of the European Union was
Beck.                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 28 February 2000 by Javier Martinez Lara
                                                                         and Milva Urbán Penón, residing at Brussels, represented by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique
                                                                         Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— annul decision 1999/307 of the Council of 1 May 1999                   Luxembourg at the offices of the Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
    laying down the detailed arrangements for the integration            SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
    of the Schengen secretariat into the General Secretariat of
    the Council;                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the decisions to appoint four persons to LA 7 posts              — annul the decision of the appointing authority of 28 July
    in the Portuguese Division of the Council’s Language                     1999 to reject the applicants’ application to define Compe-
    Service;                                                                 tition B/260 as a ‘non-specialised’ competition concerning
                                                                             passage from one category to another for the purpose of
— annul the subsequent implied decisions not to appoint the                  drawing up a reserve list of administrative assistants of
    applicant to one of those posts;                                         Grade B5;


title: Case C-327/17 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Cryo-Save AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15, Cryo-Save AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/2

         Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Cryo-Save AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15, Cryo-Save AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-327/17 P)
   (2017/C 330/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Cryo-Save AG (represented by: C. Onken, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 in Case T-239/15;

               —

               order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward one ground of appeal alleging an infringement of Article 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, (1) of Rule 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, (2) in conjunction with Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rules 37 and 39 of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. The appellant argues that the infringement consists of the General Court’s decision to find that the first plea in law of the applicant, who is the appellant in the present case, was inadmissible.
   By its first plea in law the applicant and appellant contested the admissibility of the application for revocation of its EU trade mark. In support thereof, it asserted that, contrary to Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation No 2868/95, that application was insufficiently reasoned.
   The General Court decided that the first plea in law put forward by the applicant and appellant was inadmissible, as the latter had failed to allege any infringement of the formal requirements of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation No 2868/95, the examination of the complaint was limited to examining whether there had been genuine use, and the Board of Appeal was therefore not required to consider the propriety of the application for revocation. The General Court took the view that any assessment by it of the first plea in law would amount to an extension of the factual and legal context, something which was a matter for the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant and appellant counters this by submitting that the admissibility of an application for revocation constitutes a precondition for a substantive decision, which must be assessed by the defendant at every stage of the proceedings of its own motion (Article 76([1]), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 39(1) and Rule 40(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 2868/95, Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95). It is therefore inconsequential whether or not the applicant and appellant had specifically raised the issue of the admissibility of the application for revocation before the Board of Appeal.
   Furthermore, the appellant maintains that the defendant’s Cancellation Division assessed the admissibility of the application for revocation of its own motion and expressly stated that the requirements of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 37 of Regulation No 2868/95 had been fulfilled. The appellant submits that the principle of continuity of functions, as recognised in the case-law of the General Court, requires a full review of the decision of the Cancellation Division by the Board of Appeal, including assessments as to the admissibility of applications for revocation. In support of its view, the appellant refers to, inter alia, the case-law of the General Court as expressed in the judgments of 23 September 2003, KLEENCARE, T-308/01, paragraphs 24 to 26, 28, 29 and 32, (3) and of 1 February 2005, HOOLIGAN, T-57/03, paragraphs 22 and 25. (4)

   Lastly, the applicant and appellant indubitably challenged the admissibility of the application for revocation, albeit in different terms, both in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and in those before the Board of Appeal.
   On the basis of all three aforementioned grounds the question as to the admissibility of the application for revocation has always been part of the factual and legal context of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. The applicant claims that the assessment of the admissibility of the application for revocation by the General Court does not go beyond such an analysis. The applicant maintains that, to that extent, a complaint of inadmissibility of an application for revocation differs from the submission of new grounds for revocation or invalidity and also differs from a belated request for evidence of genuine use of an earlier mark.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1.

      (3)  ECLI:EU:T:2003:241.

      (4)  ECLI:EU:T:2005:29.


title: Case C-566/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG
   (Case C-566/15)
   (2016/C 090/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Kammergericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konrad Erzberger

      Defendant: TUI AG

      Question referred

   Is it compatible with Article 18 TFEU (non-discrimination) and Article 45 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers) for a Member State to grant the right to vote and stand as a candidate for the employees’ representatives in the supervisory body of a company only to those workers who are employed in establishments of the company or in affiliated companies within the domestic territory?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 January 2005 in Case T-372/03 Yves Mahieu v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Time-limits for complaints and actions — Implied rejection of the complaint — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/28

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 19 January 2005
   in Case T-372/03 Yves Mahieu v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Time-limits for complaints and actions - Implied rejection of the complaint - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 132/51)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-372/03: Yves Mahieu, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Auderghem (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Krämer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), — application for, firstly, the annulment of the decisions implicitly rejecting the claim brought by the applicant on 29 October 2002 against the decision of the Commission of 6 August 2002 rejecting his request made on the basis of Articles 24 and 90(1) of the Staff Regulations in connection with the mental harassment which he allegedly suffered and, secondly, damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.


title: Case F-74/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/45

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission
      (Case F-74/13) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Anne Mommer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and subsequently by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and finally by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 33.


title: Case C-224/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Staatsanwaltschaft Baden-Baden v Leo Apelt

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Baden-Baden (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Staatsanwaltschaft Baden-Baden v Leo Apelt
   (Case C-224/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Baden-Baden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatsanwaltschaft Baden-Baden

      Defendant: Leo Apelt

      Questions referred

               1.

               With due regard for Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1), which provides for licences for category D to be issued only to drivers already entitled to drive vehicles in category B, may a Member State refuse, in accordance with Article 1 and Article 8(2) and (4) of that Directive, to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State for categories B and D — particularly with respect to category D — if the holder of that driving licence was granted the right to drive vehicles in category B before the right to drive was withdrawn by a court in the first Member State, whereas the right to drive vehicles in category D was not granted until after that withdrawal and after the expiry of the period simultaneously set before a new licence might be issued?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative:
               May the first Member State refuse to recognise the aforementioned driving licence — particularly with respect to the right to drive vehicles in category D — in application of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC (2), according to which a Member State is required to refuse to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose driving licence has been withdrawn in the territory of the former Member State, if the right to drive vehicles in category B was granted on 1 March 2006 and the right to right to drive vehicles in category D was granted on 30 April 2007 and the driving licence was issued on the latter date?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).


title: Case C-413/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2014 by Intel Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 June 2014 in Case T-286/09: Intel Corporation v European Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/25

      Appeal brought on 28 August 2014 by Intel Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 June 2014 in Case T-286/09: Intel Corporation v European Commission
      (Case C-413/14 P)
      (2014/C 395/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Intel Corporation (represented by: Messrs D. M. Beard QC, A. N. Parr and R. W. Mackenzie, Solicitors)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission,
      Association for Competitive Technology, Inc.,
      Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal;

                  —

                  annul in whole or in part the contested decision;

                  —

                  cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed;

                  —

                  in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the first ground of appeal, which is divided in three parts, the Appellant claims that the General Court applied the wrong legal standard to assess the legality of its conduct under Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement:

                  The General Court erred in concluding that the conduct in question was inherently capable of restricting competition and thus may be found contrary to Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement without any need to consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding it.

                  The General Court erred in concluding that in order to establish an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, capability to restrict competition may be assessed on the basis of abstract considerations rather than likely or actual effects.

                  The General Court erred in its alternative finding that the conduct in question was capable of restricting competition, because the Court erroneously took account of factors that cannot establish that capability and disregarded a number of relevant factors that should have been considered, such as the market coverage of the practice, the duration of the alleged practices, actual market evidence of rapidly declining prices and a lack of foreclosure, and the conclusions to be properly drawn from the as-efficient competitor (AEC) test carried out by the Commission during the administrative proceeding.

            By the second ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court erred in finding an infringement for the final two years of the alleged period of infringement, given that, at most, the market coverage of the conduct during those years would have affected a mere 3.5 % of the relevant market.
      By the third ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court erred by classifying its conduct with HP and Lenovo as ‘exclusivity rebates’ when that conduct concerned only 28 % and 42 % (or less) of each customer’s total purchases of the relevant product, respectively, falling well short of ‘all or most’ of these customers’ requirements.
      By the fourth ground of appeal, the Appellant claims that the General Court violated the principles of effective judicial protection and procedural fairness in relation to a five-hour interview that the Commission had with a key Dell executive on questions bearing an objective link with the substance of the investigation, and during which the key Dell executive provided very detailed explanations. The General Court erred by concluding that it was sufficient for the Commission to disclose a mere list of the topics that were discussed during the interview, rather than a record or summary of what the interviewee said in relation to these topics. The General Court also erred by concluding that the Appellant had the burden to adduce prima facie evidence that the Commission failed to record exculpatory evidence; properly understood, the Appellant’s burden was only to show that it could not be excluded that the material might have been of use for its defence, a burden that it clearly met in this case.
      By the fifth ground of appeal, which is divided in three parts, the Appellant claims that the General Court incorrectly established Community jurisdiction over Intel’s agreements with Lenovo in 2006 and 2007:

                  The General Court erred in concluding that this conduct was ‘implemented’ in the EEA, because Intel did not sell any products to Lenovo in the EEA under these agreements.

                  The General Court erred in concluding that the ‘qualified effects’ test is an appropriate basis for Community jurisdiction over the conduct in question.

                  The General Court erred in applying the ‘qualified effects’ tests because it was not foreseeable that Intel’s agreements with Lenovo regarding x86 CPUs for delivery in China would have an immediate and substantial effect within the EEA.

            By the sixth ground of appeal, which is divided in two parts, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed various errors in calculating the fine imposed:

                  The fine was manifestly disproportionate.

                  The General Court violated fundamental principles of EU law by applying the Commission’s 2006 fining guidelines to conduct that had pre-dated them.


title: Case T-356/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Arable crops — Proportionality — Increase in the correction due to recurrence of the infringement)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-356/08) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Arable crops - Proportionality - Increase in the correction due to recurrence of the infringement)
   2012/C 319/08
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and V. Karra, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Markoulli, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/582/EC of 8 July 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 186, p. 39), in so far as it excluded certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.