title: Case C-655/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Seven for all mankind LLC v Seven SpA — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier word mark — Element ‘SEVEN’ — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Relative ground for refusal)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Seven for all mankind LLC v Seven SpA — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-655/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier word mark - Element ‘SEVEN’ - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Relative ground for refusal)
   2013/C 114/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac and B. Guimberteau, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Seven SpA (represented by: L. Trevisan, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10 SEVEN v OHIM — SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND, by which that Court annulled Decision R 1514/2008-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 rejecting the action against the decision annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected in part the opposition filed by the owner of the Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘Seven’ in respect of goods within Classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 28, against the registration of the word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ in respect of goods within Classes 14 and 18 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Factors to be taken into account when assessing the similarity of the signs

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Seven for all mankind LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Seven SpA;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-247/98: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 financial year)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 January 2001
                        of 11 January 2001
                                                                           in Case C-76/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-247/98: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
                                                                           VAT Directive — Article 13(A)(1)(b) — Closely related
                                                                                activities — Concept)
 (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 financial year)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/05)
                          (2001/C 150/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-76/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Agents: E. Traversa, assisted by N. Coutrelis) v French Republic
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a
                                                                           declaration that, by levying value added tax on fixed allowances
                                                                           for the taking of samples for medical analysis, the French
                                                                           Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
In Case C-247/98: Hellenic Republic (Agents: D. Papageorgo-                Article 13(A)(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
poulos, and I. Chalkias) v Commission of the European                      17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
Communities (Agents: M. Condou-Durande) — application for                  States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
the partial annulment of Commission Decision 98/358/EC of                  added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
6 May 1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the               — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the                President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and                the Sixth Chamber, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28) in the part                  Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
of that decision concerning the Hellenic Republic — the Court              Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 11 January 2001, in which it:
Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporte-
ur) and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           1.    Declares that, by levying value added tax on fixed allowances
a judgment on 11 January 2001, in which it:                                      for the transmission of samples for the purpose of medical
                                                                                analysis, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 13(A)(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive
1.     Dismisses the application;                                                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 assess-
2.     Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                            ment;
                                                                           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.05.1999.


title: Case C-53/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 2 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Hai Feng Sun

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 2 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Hai Feng Sun
   (Case C-53/12)
   2012/C 98/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Judge of Peace, Revere

      Party to the main proceedings

   Hai Feng Sun

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

               2.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?

               3.

               Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-120/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/31

         Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-120/07)
   (2007/C 95/58)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed into national law expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 136, p. 85.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2000 in Case C-8/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Heilbronn): Dansommer A/S v Andreas Götz (Brussels Convention — Article 16(1)— Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings having as their object tenancies of immovable property — Scope)

text:
8.4.2000                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/3
    7. Orders the Council and the Commission to bear their own               The rule laid down in Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of
         costs and jointly and severally to pay 90 % of the applicants’      27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-
         costs apart from the costs of the expert’s report commissioned      ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
         by the Court. The costs of that report shall be borne jointly       Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
         and severally, as to 90 %, by the Council and the                   Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
         Commission. Since the remaining 10 % of those costs is to           Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
         be borne by all of the applicants in the two cases, that            Accession of the Hellenic Republic, and by the Convention of 26
         percentage shall be borne as to 22 % each by the applicants         May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
         in Case C-104/89 and as to 12 % by Mr Heinemann.                    Portuguese Republic, conferring exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings
                                                                             having as their object tenancies of immovable property is applicable
                                                                             to an action for damages for taking poor care of premises and causing
(1) OJ C 109 of 29.4.1989. OJ C 71 of 21.3.1990.                             damage to accommodation which a private individual had rented for
                                                                             a few weeks’ holiday, even where the action is not brought directly by
                                                                             the owner of the property but by a professional tour operator from
                                                                             whom the person in question had rented the accommodation and
                                                                             who has brought legal proceedings after being subrogated to the
                                                                             rights of the owner of the property.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       The ancillary clauses relating to insurance in the event of cancellation
                                                                             and to guarantee of repayment of the price paid by the client, which
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    are contained in the general terms and conditions of the contract
                                                                             concluded between that organiser and the tenant, and which do not
                         of 27 January 2000                                  form the subject of the dispute in the main proceedings, do not affect
                                                                             the nature of the tenancy as a tenancy of immovable property within
in Case C-8/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the meaning of that provision of the Convention.
the Landgericht Heilbronn): Dansommer A/S v Andreas
                               Götz (1)                                      (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
(Brussels Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdic-
tion in proceedings having as their object tenancies of
                  immovable property — Scope)
                           (2000/C 102/03)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           in Case C-190/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Oberlandesgericht Linz): Volker Graf v Filzmoser
In Case C-8/98: reference to the Court, pursuant to the                                           Maschinenbau GmbH (1)
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the Interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-                   (Freedom of movement for workers — Compensation on
cial Matters, by the Landgericht Heilbronn (Germany) for a                   termination of employment — Refusal where a worker
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    terminates his contract of employment in order to take a job
court between Dansommer A/S and Andreas Götz — on the                                             in another Member State)
interpretation of Article 16(1) (a) of the abovementioned
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as                                              (2000/C 102/04)
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                                          (Language of the case: German)
L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the Convention
of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber)
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,                    In Case C-190/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; Advocate General: A. La                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht
Pergola; Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has                  (Higher Regional Court) Linz, Austria, for a preliminary ruling
given a judgment on 27 January 2000, in which it has ruled:                  in the proceedings pending before that court between Volker


title: Case T-568/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2014  — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FOCUS extreme — Earlier national word mark FOCUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)
   (Case T-568/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FOCUS extreme - Earlier national word mark FOCUS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 159/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, 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, intervener before the General Court: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Gedert, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2012 (Case R 2327/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Derby Cycle Werke GmbH and Sofia Golam.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sofia Golam to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-220/17: Action brought on 12 April 2017 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/31

         Action brought on 12 April 2017 — Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EUIPO (100 % Pfalz)
   (Case T-220/17)
   (2017/C 178/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse eG (Mutterstadt, Germany) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘100 % Pfalz’ — Application for registration No 15 085 475

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2017 in Case R 1549/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-152/12: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Aid granted to Deutsche Post by the German authorities — Increase in the cost of stamps combined with subsidies paid in order to cover the pension costs of employees engaged as officials — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/15

         Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-152/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Postal sector - Aid granted to Deutsche Post by the German authorities - Increase in the cost of stamps combined with subsidies paid in order to cover the pension costs of employees engaged as officials - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: initially by E. Henny and T. Ottervanger, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Ottervanger, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 4 and 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 concerning Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG.

               3.

               UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-483/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu v Romanian State represented by the Ministry for Public Finance

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu v Romanian State represented by the Ministry for Public Finance
   (Case C-483/11)
   2011/C 347/21
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Argeș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu

      Defendant: Romanian State represented by the Ministry of Public Finance

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Article 5 of Law No 221/2009, as amended by decision No 1358 of the Constitutional Court of Romania of 21 October 2010, infringe Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

               2.

               Do Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights preclude national legislation which, in the case of the politically-motivated conviction of an individual by a decision contrary to law, allows that individual’s right to compensation for the non-material damage suffered to be limited?


title: Case C-269/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 May 2014  — Kansaneläkelaitos, Suomen Palvelutaksit ry, Oulun Taksipalvelut Oy

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 May 2014 — Kansaneläkelaitos, Suomen Palvelutaksit ry, Oulun Taksipalvelut Oy
   (Case C-269/14)
   2014/C 261/22
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Kansaneläkelaitos, Suomen Palvelutaksit ry, Oulun Taksipalvelut Oy

      Other parties: Suomen Taksiliitto ry, Turun Seudun Invataksit ry, Hämeen Taksi Oy, Itä-Suomen Maakunnallinen Taksi Oy, Kainuun Taksivälitys Oy, Keski-Suomen Taksi Oy, Lounais-Suomen Taxidata Oy, Pohjois-Suomen Taksi Oy

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning a service concession be understood as meaning that it does not extend to a complex arrangement which includes the payment of reimbursements within the authority’s organisational responsibility in the form of a direct reimbursement scheme and at the same time a system of booking journeys which is not within the authority’s responsibility?

               2)

               What significance should be attached to the indirect consequence of the scheme that the purpose of the booking system is to reduce the transport costs payable from public funds by the Kansaneläkelaitos?


4 . 3 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/1 9
2. join the present action to that already pending in Case          — order the Community to pay the applicant ECU 10
     T-77/93 Hulseberg and Others v. Council and                        million by way of damages and to pay the costs,
      Commission and also stay the proceedings.
                                                                    — grant interim relief regardless of the proceedings and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         without requiring a guarantee.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                    The applicant contests the Commission's decision to
                                                                    proceed no further with its complaint concerning the
                                                                    infringement of the Community rules on competition by the
Action brought on 16 January 1995 by the Amicale des                undertakings possessing the sole operating franchise in
Residents du Square d'Auvergne against Commission of the            respect of the district heating system for Massy-Antony.
                    European Communities
                         (Case T-5/95 )                             The applicant claims first of all that, in taking the decision to
                                                                    proceed no further on the ground of the alleged lack of a
                          ( 95/C 54/36 )
                                                                    Community interest, the Commission made a manifest error
                                                                    of assessment of the facts of the case.
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                    Secondly, the undertakings in question have participated in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   agreements and concerted practices which have as their
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January 1995             object the restriction or distortion of competition in a
by the Amicale des Residents du Square d'Auvergne, whose            substantial part of the common market, increasing by a
headquarters are in Massy ( France ), represented by                disproportionate amount the costs to be borne by the
                                                                    tenants .
Jean-Marc Florand and Karim Achoui, of the Paris Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance               Lastly, the Commission's inaction is ground for a
should :                                                            declaration that Article 155 of the Treaty has also been
                                                                    infringed.
— declare that the Commission has exceeded its powers
     and that it has failed to act,
— declare void the declaratory decisions (D/09735 and
     D/10419 ) issued by Directorate-General IV
     ( Competition ) on 20 September 1994 and 5 October
     1994 respectively and the declaratory decision ( SPC/D               Removal from the register of Case T-45/92 ( a )
     03463 ) issued by the Consumer Policy Service on
     26 October 1994,                                                                         ( 95/C 54/37)
— order the Commission to take further steps — in strict                          (Language of the case: French)
     compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Court
     of First Instance in Automec v. Commission ( Case
     T-24/90 [ 1992] ECR 11-2223 ) and other judgments              By order of 4 January 1995 the President of the Third
     contributing to that branch of case-law — for the              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     thorough investigation of the grounds set out in the           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
     original complaint of 25 July 1994 submitted by the            T-45/92: Loek Rijnoudt v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities .
     applicant against the French State, SIMACUR, HLM
     Residences le Logement des Fonctionnaires, CURMA
     and UFINER-COFRETH,                                            (!) OJ No C 182 , 18 . 7. 1992 .


title: Case C-67/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy — Commission decision declaring that scheme compatible with the common market — Actions for damages in respect of the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision — Transitional measures between that scheme and the previous scheme — Temporal scope of application of the Commission’s decision not to object to the previous scheme — Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-67/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy - Commission decision declaring that scheme compatible with the common market - Actions for damages in respect of the losses allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision - Transitional measures between that scheme and the previous scheme - Temporal scope of application of the Commission’s decision not to object to the previous scheme - Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment)
   2010/C 346/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl (represented by: A. Calabrese, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 2 December 2008 in Cases T-362/05 and T-363/05 Nuova Agricast v Commission by which the Court of First Instance rejected the claims for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the appellants as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State aid No 715/1999 — Italy (SG 2000 D/105754)) and as a result of the Commission’s conduct during the procedure which preceded the adoption of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Nuova Agricast Srl and Cofra Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-545/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G. v Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/32

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G. v Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree
      (Case C-545/11)
      (2012/C 25/58)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G.

         Defendant: Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 (1) establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid to the extent that for the years 2009 to 2012 it provides for a reduction in direct payments in excess of 5 %?

                  2.

                  Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.


title: Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-530/93 to T-533/93, T-1/94 to T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94, T-73/94 to T-76/94, T-86/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-94/94, T-96/94, T-101/94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94, T-130/94, T-253/94, T-372/94 and T-373/94

text:
C 150/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.5.2001
compensation for alleged non-material damage — the Court                    1.    dismisses the application.
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Her-            2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
zig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
22 February 2001, in which it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.00.
1.    dismisses the claims for annulment relating to the promotion of
      the applicant to Grade B 4 as inadmissible;
2.    dismisses the claim for compensation for the non-material
      damage allegedly caused by the discriminatory conduct of the
      Parliament with regard to the promotion of the applicant to
      Grade B 4;
                                                                            Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-530/93
                                                                            to T-533/93, T-1/94 to T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94,
3.    dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;              T-73/94 to T-76/94, T-86/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-94/94,
                                                                            T-96/94, T-101/94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94,
4.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                            T-130/94, T-253/94, T-372/94 and T-373/94 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/52)
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.00.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            By order of 15 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the
                                                                            list of applicants in Joined Cases T-530/93 to T-533/93,
                                                                            T-1/94 to T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94, T-73/94 to
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 T-76/94, T-86/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-94/94, T-96/94,
                                                                            T-101/94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94, T-130/94,
                       of 13 February 2001                                  T-253/94, T-372/94 and T-373/94 R. Bathoorn and Others v
                                                                            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities:
in Case T-166/00: Peter Hirschfeldt v European Environ-
                      ment Agency (EEA) (1)                                 —     in Case T-530/93: R. Bathoorn, D.J. and N.W.C. Augusti-
                                                                                nus, H.J. Beltman, G. Beukers, M. Brouwer, H. van
                                                                                Deurzen, W. van Ginkel, A.F. de Groot, X.J. van Haren,
(Officials — Internal competition — Annulment — Transfer
     — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regulations)                            F. v.d. Hoek, J. Houtsma, A.M. Idema, W. de Jager,
                                                                                W.G.M. Kleinlangevelsloo, W.H. Klein Poelhuis, J. Knoll,
                                                                                T.W. Kruizinga, M.J. Lemmen, H.B. Lenferink, W. Male-
                          (2001/C 150/51)                                         stein, W.A.J. Nederend, G.J. and A. Nijboer, J.S.M. Nijland-
                                                                                v.d. Berg, T. Rovers-van Schijndel, N.P. van Stralen,
                                                                                P.H. Twisk, B. van Veen, J.A. Wichink, W. Zuideveld;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            —     in Case T-531/93: H. Aamink, J. ter Avest, J.H.B.J. ter
                                                                                Bekke, G.J. and D. van de Berg, E.J. Bosboom,
In Case T-166/00: Peter Hirschfeldt, an official of the European                  A.J.M.F. Bouwman, N.S. Bouwhuis, G.J. Edeleijn, G. Geer-
Environment Agency, residing in Copenhagen, represented by                        dink, J. Gemmink, B.J.M. Gielink, P. van de Groes, G. van
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in                 der Groot, J.P.H. Groothuis, G. Helder, W. Houtsma,
Luxembourg, against The European Environment Agency                               A.H.B.M. Jansen, B. Kemna, A.G. Keuper, F.E. Keuper,
(EEA) (Agents: J.-L. Salazar, J. Rivière and D. Waelbroeck) —                     T.M.F. Klazinga, F.B. Kuiper, H. Lammers, B.H. Luijerink,
application for the annulment, first, of the decision of the                      L.H.W. van Marwijk, B.J.P. Meekenkamp, H.S. van de
EEA of 24 September 1999 to annul internal competition                            Meulen, J.H. Nagel, G.J.H. Nijhof, H.G.J. Ottenschot,
EEA/T/99/1 for the post of head of the ‘Finance’ department                       G.A. Oude Voshaar, W.A. Overbeek, H. Peltjes, P.P. Reim-
and, secondly, the decision of the EEA of 13 December 1999                        er, W. Rensen, G.J. Rikhof, J. Ruesink, J.G.A. Schrijver
to transfer the applicant from the Commission to the EEA                          Groote Stroek, J.H. Th. Siemens, L. Spijkers (Hardenveld),
inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade A 5, step 3, with effect                   L. Spijkers (previously Baneheide, now Simpelveld),
from 1 November 1999 — the Court of First Instance                                A. Steur, G. Talma, G.M.J. Vergeldt, L. Vos;
(Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal                 —     in Case T-533/93: J.B. Averink, D. Bekkemens-Boode,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 Febru-                    W. Brouwer, W. Grijpstra, A.J. Hebben, J.M.R. Huver,
ary 2001, in which it:                                                            T.W.J. Kraayvanger, H.G.J. Scholten
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 150/27
—     in Case T-74/94: J.J.H. van den Broek, G.J.E. van Laar,                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      J.T. Salden, J.A.M. Wouters
                                                                                of 14 February 2001
—     in Case T-75/94: J.M.F.M. Flamand                                   in Case T-3/00: Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas v Council of the
                                                                                European Union and European Central Bank (1)
—     in Case T-86/94: J. Bakker, E. Hardeman, G.J. Prins, G. van              (Inadmissibility — Access to institution documents)
      Putten
                                                                                (2001/C 150/53)
—     in Case T-87/94:Th. H. Clemens, N.J.G.M. Costongs,
      W.A.J. Derks, R.P. Geertsema, W. Hermsen, P. Hogenk-                                     (Language of the case: Greek)
      amp, J.H. Kelder, G.M. Kuijs, E.J. Liefting, J.H. Nieuwenhu-
      izen, D.J. Preuter, A.J.M. Sturkenboom, J.J. de Wit                 In Case T-3/00: Athanasios Pitsiorlas, residing in Thessaloniki
                                                                          (Greece), Dimitris Papafilippou, Barrister, against Council of
                                                                          the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer, S. Kyriakopoulou and
—     in Case T-91/94: D. Vellema, J. and K. Visser                       D. Zachariou) and European Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli,
                                                                          P. Vospernik and C. Kroppenstedt) — application for annul-
                                                                          ment of the decision of the Council of 30 July 1999 and of the
—     in Case T-94/94: J.W. Esselink                                      decision of the European Central Bank of 8 November 1999,
                                                                          refusing the applicant access to a document — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
—     in Case T-96/94: J.P. Groot                                         President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                          Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2001, the operative
                                                                          part of which is as follows:
—     in Case T-101/94: A.J. Dubbelhuis, A. Harkema, W. Knol
                                                                          1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible to the extent that it is
                                                                                directed against the Council decision of 30 July 1999;
—     in Case T-104/94: H. Rozema, B.L. van der Wijk
                                                                          2.    The applicant shall bear his own expenses corresponding to the
                                                                                objection of inadmissibility as well as pay for the costs incurred
—     in Case T-105/94: W. Talsma                                               by the Council.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 122 29.4.00
—     in Case T-106/94: R. and F. Visser, L.H. Hiddema
—     in Case T-118/94: J. Hoedjes, J.K. Veenstra
—     in Case T-119/94: A.J.M. and F.J.M. Baack, A.B. ten                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Broeke, O. Dallinga, L.A. Looman, J.H. Hoogendoorn
                                                                                of 2 February 2001
—     in Case T-122/94: A.G.J. van Boxtel
                                                                          in Case T-97/00: Anastassia Vakalopoulou v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
—     in Case T-124/94: K.A. Schutter
                                                                          (Temporary agent — Fixed-term contract — Extension —
                                                                          Action for annulment and damages — Decision adversely
—     in Case T-130/94: R. van Dijk, H.J. Hiermstra,                             affecting an official — Manifestly inadmissible)
      A.W.J. Reijers.
                                                                                (2001/C 150/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.93, C 27 of 28.1.94, C 43 of 12.2.94, C 59 of
    26.2.94, C 90 of 26.3.94, C 103 of 11.4.94, C 120 of 30.4.94,         In Case T-97/00: Anastassia Vakalopoulou, member of the
    C 132 of 14.5.94, C 233 of 20.8.94 and C 370 of 24.12.94              temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, residing at Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
                                                                          Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
                                                                          for annulment of the alleged decision of the Commission not


title: Case C-29/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 25 January 2008 — Skatteverket v AB SKF

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 25 January 2008 — Skatteverket v AB SKF
   (Case C-29/08)
   (2008/C 79/37)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: AB SKF
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive and Articles 2 and 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system for value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person liable for tax on sales of services to a subsidiary sells the interests in the subsidiary, that transaction is subject to VAT?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is that the sale constitutes a taxable transaction, is it then covered by the exemption from taxation relating to interests in companies under Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive and Article 135(1)(f) of Council Directive on a common system of value added tax?

               3.

               Irrespective of the answer to the above questions, can there be a right to deduct for expenditure directly attributable to the sale, in the same way as there is for general expenses?

               4

               Is it of significance for the answers to the above questions if the sale of interests in a subsidiary takes place in stages?


title: Case T-190/04: Action brought on 24 May 2004 by Société Freixenet S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/20

         Action brought on 24 May 2004 by Société Freixenet S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-190/04)
   (2004/C 201/42)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 2004 by Société Freixenet S.A., established in Sant Sadurní d'Anoia (Spain), represented by F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4) and find that the application for Community trade mark No 32532 is to be published in accordance with Article 40 of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4);

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Three-dimensional mark in the form of a white polished bottle (application No 32532)

               Goods or services:

               Goods in Class 33 (sparkling wines)

               Decision of the Examiner:

               Rejection of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94, in so far as the decision of the Board of Appeal is based on a certain number of facts in respect of which the applicant was able to submit observations, and Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of that regulation, inasmuch as the trade mark in question is intrinsically distinctive


title: Case T-318/09: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — Audi and Volkswagen v OHIM (TDI) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark TDI — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — Audi and Volkswagen v OHIM (TDI)
   (Case T-318/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark TDI - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 238/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany) and Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Kather, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 226/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TDI as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Audi AG and Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-441/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/12

         Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission
   (Case T-441/12)
   2012/C 373/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL (Santander, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

               —

               require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission.


title: Case T-232/06: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of services for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects — Rejection of a tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Action for damages — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility — Action for annulment — Time allowed for the receipt of tenders — Time allowed for the submission of requests for information — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-232/06) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of services for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects - Rejection of a tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Action for damages - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility - Action for annulment - Time allowed for the receipt of tenders - Time allowed for the submission of requests for information - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment)
   2011/C 311/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2006 not to select the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and other companies in connection with a call for tenders for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects ‘CUST-DEV’ and to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


9.9.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 259/31
       Removal from the register of Case T-85/95 (1)                              Removal from the register of Case T-176/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/55)                                                            (2000/C 259/58)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the First Chamber
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/95:                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
DIR International Film S.r.l. and Others v Commission of the               has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-176/99
European Communities.                                                      Q. v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ No C 137 of 3.6.95.                                                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
        Removal from the register of Case T-8/98 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-343/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/56)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/59)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber,
Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                      By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
register of Case T-8/98 Siderca S.A.I.C. v Commission of the               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                      has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-343/99
                                                                           Hans-Werner Schmidt v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
       Removal from the register of Case T-80/98 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/57)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-108/00 R
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/60)
By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                    (Language of the case: French)
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-80/98 CIT
Belgique S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                           By order of 3 July 2000 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-108/00
                                                                           R Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.


title: Case T-56/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Evyap v OHIM — Megusta Trading (nuru) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wiggly line — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DURU — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Evyap v OHIM — Megusta Trading (nuru)
   (Case T-56/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wiggly line - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DURU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Megusta Trading GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2013 (Case R 1861/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Megusta Trading GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Evyap Sabun Yağ Gliserin Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case T-140/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Guei v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/23

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Guei v Council
   (Case T-140/11)
   2011/C 130/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Badia Brice Guei (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Badia Brice GUEI, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Badia Brice GUEI be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.


title: Action brought on 2 October 1996 by Union Carbide Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-153/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/33
Action brought on 2 October 1996 by Union Carbide                  The applicant claims that the Commission manifestly
Corporation against the Commission of the European                 erred :
                         Communities
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to enforce the conditions upon
                      ( Case T-153/96 )
                                                                       which the Decision 94/81 1 /EC was approved and which
                        ( 96/C 354/64 )                                it sought to waive,
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to make a determination in light of
              (Language of the case: English)                          the evidence presented by the applicant that the
                                                                       conditions attached to Decision 94/8 1 1 /EC had not been
                                                                       met, and was therefore precluded from waiving such
An action against the Commission of the European                       conditions,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1996             — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
by Union Carbide Corporation, represented by Brian                     position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
Hartnett, of the Irish Bar, with an address for service in             ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the worldwide market
Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt & Medernach,                      for PP technology, and
Postal box 39 ,
                                                                  — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
                                                                       position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the Western European
                                                                       market for PP resin .
— annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C/96
    1035 Final — Shell/Montecatini , and                          The applicant further submits that the Commission lacks
                                                                  competence to amend decisions under the Merger
— order the Commission to pay the costs , disbursements            Regulation and that therefore Decision C/96 1035 Final is
                                                                   ultra vires .
    and fees of the applicant pursuant to Article 87 of the
    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities .                                         Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission
                                                                  Decision is flawed in that it is in breach of essential
                                                                  procedural requirements .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an undertaking which operates in a wide
range of markets, including the licensing, via a joint venture
with Shell Oil, of its Unipol PP technology, challenges
Commission Decision C/96 1035 Final . This decision
                                                                  Action brought on 8 October 1996 by Christiane Chvatal
purports to amend Commission Decision 94/81 1 /EC                 and Others against the Court of Justice of the European
declaring the compatibility with the common market of the                                    Communities
transaction giving rise to Montell, a joint venture between
Shell Petroleum NV (' Shell '), a member of the Royal Dutch                               ( Case T-154/96 )
Shell Group, and Montedison Nederland NV                                                    ( 96/C 354/65 )
(' Montedison '), a subsidiary of Montecatini , in the
polyolefins business, including technology and production                           (Language of the case: French)
facilities for polypropylene ('PP') and other organic
chemicals of the polyolefins group ( Case No IV/M.269 ).
Decision 94/81 1 /EC is the subject of an action for an           An action against the Court of Justice of the European
annulment brought by the applicant pursuant to the fourth          Communities was brought before the Court of First
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty and Article 43 et       Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 1996
seq of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance      by Christiane Chvatal, Jean-Yves Delaval, Jean Demaeght,
of the European Communities ( Case T-322/94 Union                 Giovanna Dragoni, John Hambly, Marc Kemmerling
Carbide v. Commission , OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 ,            Laleure, Kirsten Lammar, Theo Lippert, Antoinette Losch,
p. 17 ).                                                          Angus Mackay, Kaj Østergaard, Maureen Russell , Yvette
                                                                  Schroeder-Goerens, Ulrike Sinter, Aristides Vlachos and
                                                                  Hans Weller, all residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Decision C/96 1035 Final of 24 April 1996 purports to
                                                                  Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of
remove the conditions and obligations which the
Commission had attached to Decision 94/81 1 /EC . The
                                                                  the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                  at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, Sari , 30 Rue de
Commission held that, in the light of the divestiture of the
                                                                  Cessange .
Shell Oil assets relating to the UCC/Shell Oil licensing
business and their acquisition by UCC, the technology
commitment described in paragraph 116 of Decision                 The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
94/81 1 /EC was no longer necessary and that therefore the        should :
concentration between Shell and Montedison could be
declared compatible with the common market without the            — declare Council Regulation No 2688/95 of
need for any conditions or obligations attached to it.                 17 November 1995 to be unlawful inasmuch as its scope


title: Case T-106/06: Action brought on  6 April 2006  — Demp Holding v OHIM — BAU HOW (BAUHOW)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/31

         Action brought on 6 April 2006 — Demp Holding v OHIM — BAU HOW (BAUHOW)
   (Case T-106/06)
   (2006/C 143/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Demp Holding B.V. (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: R.-D. Härer, C. Schultze, J. Ossing and C. Weber, Rechtsanwälte)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BAU HOW GmbH (Hattersheim/Okriftel, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2003 and the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 31 January 2006 in Case R 92/2004-4;

               —

               allow the opposition and reject the application for the trade mark;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay all the costs i.e. the costs of the opposition proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for a Community trade mark: BAU HOW GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BAUHOW’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 8, 11, 19, 20, 36, 37 and 40 (Application no. 1 740 133).
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark ‘BAUHAUS’ as Benelux mark no. 570 351 and as international mark no. 646 757 for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19-21, 25, 27, 31 and 40 and the Irish mark application no. 2000/03158.
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of the right to a fair hearing and breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-635/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Galați, formerly Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Municipiul (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common customs tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 1207 — Oilseeds — Heading 1209 — Seeds for sowing — Heading 1212 — Seeds principally used for human foodstuffs, not specified or included elsewhere — Import of raw shelled pumpkin seeds originating from China)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/7

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Galați, formerly Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Municipiul
   (Case C-635/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 1207 - Oilseeds - Heading 1209 - Seeds for sowing - Heading 1212 - Seeds principally used for human foodstuffs, not specified or included elsewhere - Import of raw shelled pumpkin seeds originating from China))
   (2015/C 205/09)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC ALKA CO SRL

      Defendants: Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Galați, formerly Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Municipiul

      Operative part of the judgment

   It is for the referring court, in order to make a tariff classification of the pumpkin seeds at issue in the main proceedings, to ascertain whether those seeds are normally used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats, but are not covered by headings 1201 to 1206 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007. If that is the case, those seeds must be classified under heading 1207 of the Combined Nomenclature because they are oilseeds, whether or not they are actually used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats or for sowing or human consumption. If that is not the case, those seeds will come under heading 1209 of the Combined Nomenclature if they could still be germinated when they were imported, whether or not they are actually used for the extraction of edible or industrial oils and fats or for sowing or human consumption, or under heading 1212 of the Combined Nomenclature if they could not still be germinated.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case T-713/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Fair deal for expats and Others v Commission

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Fair deal for expats and Others v Commission
   (Case T-713/16) (1)

   (2017/C 269/47)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Case T-84/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Laboratorios Thea v OHIM — Sebapharma (Sebacur)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/42

         Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Laboratorios Thea v OHIM — Sebapharma (Sebacur)
   (Case T-84/15)
   (2015/C 118/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Thea, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Mallo Saint-Jalmes, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Sebacur’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 54  194

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 2403/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s request to annul the decision of the Opposition Division and it ordered the applicant to reimburse EUR 550 to Sebapharma GmbH & Co.;

               —

               Order the losing party to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-380/09: Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Bianchin v OHIM — Grotto (GASOLINE)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/60

         Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Bianchin v OHIM — Grotto (GASOLINE)
   (Case T-380/09)
   2009/C 282/111
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luciano Bianchin (Asolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grotto SpA (Chiuppano, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 13 July 2009 on all the grounds set out in the application and order OHIM to pay the costs;

               —

               order the production of the documents filed in Case Nos B 630410, 000002087/C and R1455/2008-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:‘GASOLINE’ (application for registration No 2 901 064) for goods in Class 9.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: GROTTO S.p.A.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Italian figurative mark composed of the word element ‘GAS (keep it simple)’ (registration Nos 959 343 and 876 729) for, inter alia, goods in Class 9, and figurative Community trade mark composed of the word element ‘GAS’ (No 2 867 463) for goods in Class 9.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: granted the application and declared that the registration of the Community trade mark in question was invalid.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Articles 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 are wholly inadequate.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 February 2001 in Case C-393/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrative (Portugal)): Ministério Público, António Gomes Valente v Fazenda Pública (Internal taxation — Special tax on motor vehicles — Second-hand vehicles)

text:
C 173/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           16.6.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 22 February 2001
                                                                                of 22 February 2001
in Case C-393/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrative (Portugal)):
Ministério Público, António Gomes Valente v Fazenda
                               Pública (1)                                 in Case C-408/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Abbey National plc v
(Internal taxation — Special tax on motor vehicles —                                   Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
                       Second-hand vehicles)
                           (2001/C 173/15)                                  (VAT — Articles 5(8) and 17(2)(a) and (5) of the Sixth VAT
                                                                            Directive — Transfer of a totality of assets — Deduction of
                                                                            input tax on services used by the transferor for the purposes
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        of the transfer — Goods and services used for the purposes
                                                                                of the taxable person’s taxable transactions)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                    (2001/C 173/16)
In Case C-393/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, (Supreme Administrative Court), Portugal for                                     (Language of the case: English)
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ministério Público, António Gomes Valente and
Fazenda Pública — on the interpretation of Article 95 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) the Court                   In Case C-408/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann                   Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von                isional Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 Febru-               pending before that court between Abbey National plc and
ary 2001, in which it has ruled:                                            Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the interpretation
                                                                            of Articles 5(8) and 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive
1.    The fact that the Commission discontinues infringement pro-           77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
      ceedings against a Member State concerning a piece of                 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      legislation has no effect on the obligation upon a court of last      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
      instance of that Member State to refer to the Court of Justice,       ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
      pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty       composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the
      (now the third paragraph of Article 234 EC), a question of            Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;
      Community law in relation to the legislation concerned.               F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in
                                                                            which it has ruled:
2.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty does not permit
      a Member State to apply to second-hand vehicles imported from
      other Member States a system of taxation in which the
      depreciation in the actual value of those vehicles is calculated in   Where a Member State has made use of the option in Article 5(8) of
      a general and abstract manner, on the basis of fixed criteria or      the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
      scales determined by a legislative provision, a regulation or an      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      administrative provision, unless those criteria or scales are         taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
      capable of guaranteeing that the amount of the tax due does           assessment, so that the transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof
      not exceed, even in a few cases, the amount of the residual tax       is regarded as not being a supply of goods, the costs incurred by the
      incorporated in the value of similar vehicles already registered      transferor for services acquired in order to effect that transfer form
      in the national territory.                                            part of that taxable person’s overheads and thus in principle have a
                                                                            direct and immediate link with the whole of his economic activity. If,
                                                                            therefore, the transferor effects both transactions in respect of which
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 value added tax is deductible and transactions in respect of which it
                                                                            is not, it follows from Article 17(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388
                                                                            that he may deduct only that proportion of the value added tax which
                                                                            is attributable to the former transactions. However, if the various


title: Case C-113/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2\1 September 2006 — Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities, CEF City Electrical Factors BV, CEF Holdings Ltd, Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in electrotechical fittings in the Netherlands — National wholesalers' association — Agreements and concerted practices having as their object a collective exclusive dealing arrangement and price-fixing — Fines)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2\1 September 2006 — Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities, CEF City Electrical Factors BV, CEF Holdings Ltd, Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied
   (Case C-113/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in electrotechical fittings in the Netherlands - National wholesalers' association - Agreements and concerted practices having as their object a collective exclusive dealing arrangement and price-fixing - Fines)
   (2006/C 294/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Technische Unie BV (represented by: P. Bos and C. Hubert, Lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: W. Wils, Agent, H. Gilliams, Lawyer), CEF City Electrical Factors BV, CEF Holdings Ltd, Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, Lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 December 2003 in Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00 Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2000/117/EC of 26 October 1999 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie) (OJ 2000 L 39, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 16 December 2003 in Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00 Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie v Commission solely in so far as the Court of First Instance, in examining the plea alleging breach of the ‘reasonable time’ principle, omitted to ascertain whether the excessive duration, imputable to the Commission of the European Communities, of the entire administrative procedure, including the phase preceding the notification of the statement of objections, was capable of affecting the future possibilities of Technische Unie BV to defend its interests;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by Technische Unie BV before the Court of First Instance, in so far as it is based in part on the plea alleging breach of the ‘reasonable time’ principle;

               4.

               Orders Technische Unie BV to pay the costs of these proceedings. The costs relating to the proceedings at first instance which gave rise to the judgment of 16 December 2003 in Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00 Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie v Commission remain payable by Technische Unie BV, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 3 of the operative part of that judgment.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


title: Case T-326/11: Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/50

         Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Brainlab v OHIM (BrainLAB)
   (Case T-326/11)
   2011/C 269/111
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by J. Bauer, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2011 in Case R 1596/2010-4;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for a decision on the question whether all due care was taken in respect of the renewal of the relevant Community trade mark BrainLAB, No 1 290 113;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark BrainLAB for goods and services in Classes 9, 10 and 42

      Decision of the department ‘Register and associated databases’: Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum as regards the time-limit for filing the request for renewal and paying the renewal fee

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum and finding that Community trade mark No 1 290 113 had expired

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009 as it was not possible for any of the parties, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, to comply with a time-limit vis-à-vis the defendant, as a result of which the loss of a right occurred and the two-month time-limit for the filing of the application for restitutio in integrum was complied with.


title: Case T-351/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission
   (Case T-351/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)
   2012/C 355/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Dura Vermeer Groep NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dura Vermeer Groep NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.