title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 1997 in Case C-29/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen: Eckehard Pastoors, Trans-cap GmbH v. Belgian State (Road transport - Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and 3821/85 - Implementing national provisions)

text:
8 . 3 . 97           fWl                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/5
The reference quantity allocated to a producer by a                  than that fixed in the .case of immediate payment, in
Member State in 1984 under the additional levy system is             default of which their vehicle will be impounded.
attached to all the land, owned or leased, which is
operated by the producer for milk production, even if part           H OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
of the land is situated in another Member State. On expiry
of a lease, the reference quantity reverts to the lessor,
where the former lessee does not intend to continue milk
production.
H OJ No C 43 , 12. 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 January 1997
                                                                     in Case C-153/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Raad van State van Belgie ): Andre en Co. NV v.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          Belgian State (')
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                   (Monetary compensatory amounts — Exemption)
                      of 23 January 1997                                                        ( 97/C 74/09 )
in Case C-29/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen: Eckehard                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
         Pastoors, Trans-cap GmbH v. Belgian State (')
(Road transport — Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/
    85 and 3821/85 — Implementing national provisions)                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 97/C 74/08 )
                                                                     In Case C-153/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                       of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State, Belgium, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Andre en Co. NV and Belgian State — on
                                                                     the interpretation of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       No 926/80 of 15 April 1980 on exemption from the
           published in the European Court Reports)                  application of monetary compensatory amounts in certain
                                                                     cases ( OJ No L 99 , 1980, p. 15 ) — the Court ( Fourth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur )
In Case C-29/95 reference to the Court under Article 177             acting as President, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te               Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Antwerpen ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
proceedings pending before that court between Eckehard               23 January 1997, in which it has ruled:
Pastoors, Trans-Cap GmbH and Belgian State — on the
interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty and the
general principle of equality laid down by Community law              1 . Article 8 (2) (b) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
— the Court composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of                      No 926/80 of 15 April 1980 on exemption from the
Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                     application of monetary compensatory amounts
P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges, Advocate-General;                 (MCAs) in certain cases is to be interpreted as
 G. Tesauro, L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,                applying also where the exported product had
has given a judgment on 23 January 1997, in which it                      previously been imported within the six months
rules :                                                                   preceding its exportation.
Article 6 of the EC Treaty precludes national legislation             2. Article 8 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 926/80 is to
 adopted in implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)                    be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse
 No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization                      exemption from payment of MCAs, it is sufficient for
 of certain social legislation relating to road transport and             the same product to be exported within six months
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821 /85 of 20 December                      of its importation, irrespective of whether it was
 1985 on recording equipment in road transport which, in                  imported by the same or another trader.
 cases of infringement, imposes only on non-residents who
 opt for continuation of the normal criminal proceedings              H OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
 against them rather than for immediate payment of the
 prescribed fine the obligation to deposit a fixed sum by
 way of security in respect of each offence, which is higher


title: Case T-4/05: Action brought on 4 January 2005 by Guido Strack against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/39

         Action brought on 4 January 2005 by Guido Strack against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-4/05)
   (2005/C 57/65)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 January 2005 by Guido Strack, residing in Wasserliesch (Germany), represented by R. Schmitt, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul both the decision of 5 February 2004 to close the OLAF investigation OF/2002/0356 and the final case report on which that decision was based (NT/sr D(2003)-AC-19723-01687 of 5 February 2004);

               —

               order the Commission to reopen the investigation, draw up a new final case report and pay all the costs of the judicial proceedings and all other expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a Commission official, informed the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that, while performing his duties at the Official Publications Office, he had become of aware of facts indicating the existence of serious irregularities. The investigation opened by OLAF on the basis of that information was closed by the contested decision.
   The applicant submits, first of all, that his action is admissible because the contested decision has binding legal effect on him in that it deprives him of the status of ‘whistleblower’.
   In support of his action, he submits that OLAF failed to investigate fully the facts of which it had been informed and adopted an arbitrary decision.


title: Case C-560/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/34

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma
      (Case C-560/11)
      (2012/C 25/64)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

         Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma

         Question referred

      Is there a conflict between national legislation and Community law, in particular between, on the one hand, Articles 19(5) and 19a of Presidential Decree No 633/72 and, on the other, Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) document COM (2001) 260 final of 23 May 2001 and document COM (2000) 348 final of 7 June 2000, and ‘unequal treatment’ as regards the VAT rules applied by the various Member States of the European Union, given that different rates of VAT are applied to the same healthcare services?

         (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1


title: Case T-192/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/23

         Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-192/04)
   (2004/C 217/43)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos De Descanso, S.A., Madrid (Spain), represented by R. Ocquet, lawyer.
   Legget & Platt, Incorporated was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 18 March 2004 in Case R 333/2003-1 and alter it insofar that it rejected the proof of evidence filed by the opponent and insofar it rejected the opposition B-386088;

               —

               remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and order it to deny from registration the Community trade mark application No 1607167 ‘LURA-FLEX’ for all goods it seeks protection for;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the current proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Legget & Platt, Inc.

               Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark ‘LURA-FLEX’ for goods in classes 6 and 20 (Spring assemblies for incorporation into furniture, beds, mattresses and seating; furniture, beds, bedding, mattresses,...) (No 1607167)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere S.A., now Flex Equipos de Descanso S.A.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The Spanish trade mark registrations for the figurative mark ‘FLEX’ for goods in class 6 and 20 (metallic construction materials, metallic bed frameworks; beds, mixed mattresses with metallic springs, furniture,...) as well as the reputation of these signs in relation to all kind of beds, mattresses and pillows.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Rejection of the appeal brought by Flex Equipos de Descanso

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Rule 18(2) and 22(4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) and the opponent's right to be heard in accordance with Rule 18 of the regulation, as well as an infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 (2).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1)

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


title: Case C-607/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2012 — Dresser Rand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
   (Case C-607/12)
   2013/C 101/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dresser Rand SA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the transfer of goods to Italy from another Member State for the purpose of verifying whether those goods may be adapted to other goods acquired within Italy, without anything being done to the goods brought into Italy, come within the notion of ‘work on the goods’ referred to in Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and, in this connection, is it appropriate to assess the nature of the transactions which took place between F.B. ITMI and DR-IT?

               2.

               Is Article 17(2)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing in their legislation or practices that the dispatch or transport of goods is not to be treated as a transfer to another Member State except on condition that the goods are returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


3 . 6 . 95                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 137/ 15
the EC Treaty in so far as it penalizes in general the                            Removal from the register of Case C-4 15/92 ( )
importation by private individuals of medicaments or, as in                                            ( 95/C 137/33 )
this case , spectacles from other Member States ?
                                                                           By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-415/92 : Italian Republic
                                                                           v. Commission of the European Communities .
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Commission of the
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                           ( t ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 .
                              ( Case C-125/95 )
                                ( 95/C 137/32 )
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice on 11 April 1995 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Sergio de Carvalho, Legal                         Removal from the register of Case C-397/93 ( )
Advisers , acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                             ( 95/C 137/34 )
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis , of its Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           By order of 16 February 1995 the President of the Court of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-397/93 ( reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
     period all the measures necessary to implement in                     Genova ): Voltri Terminal Europa SpA v. Giorgio Donati
     full :                                                                and Others .
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC (') of 28 January 1991                 (>) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
          concerning the animal health conditions governing
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and
          products,
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
           and the placing on the market of live bivalve
           molluscs ,                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-52/94 ( ! )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/35 )
     — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC ( i ) of 22 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
          and the placing on the market of fishery products ,              By order of 16 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
           and                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-52/94 : Italian Republic
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC ( 4 ) of 16 June 1992                   v. Commission of the European Communities .
           laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels in           (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
           accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Directive
           91 /493 /EEC ,
— the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its
     obligations under the Treaty,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-89/94 (')
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                     ( 95/C 137/36 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-79/95 . The period prescribed for transposing the                   By order of 8 March 1995 the President of the Court of
Directives expired on 1 January 1993 .                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-89/94 : Commission of the
(')  OJ  No    L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                           European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(2)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(;)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .                            (M OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ  No    L 187, 7. 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .


title: Case C-17/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — B.F. Cadman v Health & Safety Executive (Social policy — Article 141 EC — Principle of equal pay for men and women — Length of service as a determinant of pay — Objective justification — Burden of proof)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — B.F. Cadman v Health & Safety Executive
   (Case C-17/05) (1)

   (Social policy - Article 141 EC - Principle of equal pay for men and women - Length of service as a determinant of pay - Objective justification - Burden of proof)
   (2006/C 294/17)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: B.F. Cadman

      Respondent: Health & Safety Executive

      Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 141 EC — Equal pay for men and women — Duration of employment used as a criterion for determining pay and having a different effect according to the sex of the worker
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 141 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, where recourse to the criterion of length of service as a determinant of pay leads to disparities in pay, in respect of equal work or work of equal value, between the men and women to be included in the comparison:

               —

               since, as a general rule, recourse to the criterion of length of service is appropriate to attain the legitimate objective of rewarding experience acquired which enables the worker to perform his duties better, the employer does not have to establish specifically that recourse to that criterion is appropriate to attain that objective as regards a particular job, unless the worker provides evidence capable of raising serious doubts in that regard;

               —

               where a job classification system based on an evaluation of the work to be carried out is used in determining pay, there is no need to show that an individual worker has acquired experience during the relevant period which has enabled him to perform his duties better.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.


title: Case T-89/06: Action brought on  15 March 2006  — Lebard v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/42

         Action brought on 15 March 2006 — Lebard v Commission
   (Case T-89/06)
   (2006/C 131/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Lebard (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: de Guillenschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision set out in the letter of 16 January 2006 addressed to Mr Lebard, dismissing the application for withdrawal of Decision IV/M.1517 in the name of the Commission;

               —

               annul, as a consequence, the Commission's decision to close the file on the concentrations between Rhodia and Albright & Wilson and de Hoechst and Rhône-Poulenc to the extent that these transactions are interlinked;

               —

               as a result, declare that Decision IV/M.1378 of 2004 is also void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay Mr Lebard the sum of one euro for the harm caused to him, to have the judgment of the Court of First Instance containing the order published at its own cost in newspapers chosen by the applicant and to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision No IV/M.1517 of July 1999, the Commission authorised a concentration under which Rhodia SA was to take full control of the company Albright & Wilson, of which the applicant was chairman between 28 July 1999 and 14 October 1999. By Decision No IV/M.1378 of 9 August 1999, the Commission also authorised the concentration between the undertakings Hoechst and Rhône-Poulenc, the latter having a controlling interest in Rhodia of 67.35 %. Certain commitments relating to Rhodia (sale of Rhône-Poulenc's interest in Rhodia, maintenance of independent management of the two undertakings) were entered into by Rhône-Poulenc and attached to Decision No IV/M.1378 to ensure that the transactions would not have an adverse effect on competition. The applicant sent the Commission several letters informing it that the commitments entered into in respect of Case IV/M.1378 had allegedly not been complied with and requesting that Decision No IV/M.1517 be withdrawn. In its reply of 7 October 2005, the Commission stated that it did not envisage bringing any action on the basis of the facts brought to its knowledge by the applicant and that it had decided to close the file. In response to the applicant's letter, the Cabinet of the President of the Commission sent the applicant a letter dated 16 January 2006 confirming its earlier position as that set out in the letter of 7 October 2005, namely the rejection of the application to withdraw the Commission's decision in Case IV/M.1517. The present action for annulment is directed against the alleged decision contained in the Commission's letter of 16 January 2006.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward several pleas.
   First, for the purposes of admissibility of his action, the applicant purports to have a direct interest in bringing proceedings as recipient of the contested letter causing him direct and individual harm. He further contends that the letter of 16 January 2006, which is the subject of the present action, cannot be considered to be an act that simply confirms the letter of 7 October 2005 on the ground that a new element has since arisen which is likely to bring about a substantial change in the circumstances and conditions governing the adoption of the former measure for the purposes of Community case-law. The applicant thereby refers to a letter from Mrs Kroes of 12 January 2006 addressed to the Members of the European Parliament concerning the concentrations in question.
   Second, the applicant puts forward pleas in support of the forms of order sought on the merits. In the first, alleging a breach of the substantive and procedural rules in the field of competition, he criticises the Commission for not re-examining the file and not using its power to withdraw its earlier decision. In the second, he alleges that the Commission has misused its powers by failing to maintain tight control over the concentrations, authorised in advance, in the course of their implementation.
   Finally, the applicant puts forward a plea based on judicial protection which, he contends, is owed to the parties to a concentration and in particular to the directors of an undertaking involved in a concentration.


title: Case C-299/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales), by order of that court of 5 May 1999, in the case of Philips Electronics NV against Remington Consumer Products Ltd

text:
16.10.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 299/13
— Article 14 of the directive, which lays down specific                 (England & Wales) of 5 May 1999, which was received at the
    provisions for qualifications awarded by the authorities            Court Registry on 9 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
    of the former German Democratic Republic, was not                   the case of Philips Electronics NV against Remington Con-
    transposed.                                                         sumer Products Ltd, on the following questions:
— Article 7 was only partly transposed and Article 11 was               1. Is there a category of marks which is not excluded from
    not fully transposed in that no account was taken of the                registration by Articles 3(1)(b)-(d) and Article 3(3) of the
    correction published in the Official Journal L 87 of 2 April            Council Directive 89/104/EEC(1) (‘the Directive’), which is
    1986.                                                                   nonetheless excluded from registration by Article 3(1 )(a)
                                                                            of the Directive (as being incapable of distinguishing the
                                                                            goods of the proprietor from those other undertakings)?
Breaches relating to the incorrect transpo-
sition of the directive
                                                                        2. Is the shape (or part of the shape) of an article (being the
                                                                            article in respect of which the sign is registered) only
(a) Establishment as an architect                                           capable of distinguishing for the purposes of Article 2 if it
                                                                            contains some capricious addition (being an embellishment
    Article 4.2(a) of decree No 129/92 lays down a general                  which has no functional purpose) to the shape of the
    requirement for the production of the original diploma or               article?
    a certified true copy of the diploma of the applicant
    architect. That requirement ought to be reserved for cases
    of doubt over the authenticity of qualifications and is             3. Where a trader has been the only supplier of particular
    contrary to Article 27 of the directive inasmuch as it lays             goods to the market, is extensive use of a sign, which
    down an additional general condition which is neither                   consists of the shape (or part of the shape) of those goods
    appropriate nor justified for the purposes of exercising the            and which does not include any capricious addition,
    right of establishment. The same conclusion is called for               sufficient to give the sign a distinctive character for the
    with regard to the routine requirement for an official                  purposes of Article 3(3) in circumstances where as a result
    translation of documents produced by an applicant archi-                of that use a substantial proportion of the relevant trace
    tect, laid down by Article 4.3 of the decree.                           and public
(b) The provision of services                                               (i) associate the shape with that trader and no other
                                                                                undertaking;
    Article 9.3 of decree No 129/92, which requires a provider
    of services to register with the regional and the national              (ii) believe that goods of that shape come from that trader
    professional body for architects, clearly exceeds the bounds                  absent a statement to the contrary?
    of the directive and constitutes a wholly unjustified
    obstacle to the provision of occasional service on Italian
    territory.                                                          4. (i) Can the restriction imposed by the words ‘if it consists
                                                                                exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to
    Article 9.1 of that decree prohibits an architect providing                   achieve a technical result’ appearing in Article 3(1)(e)(ii)
    services in Italy from setting up a permanent infrastructure                  be overcome by establishing that there are other shapes
    there. This sort of general and indiscriminate prohibition                    which can obtain the same technical result or
    is not justified by any of the provisions of the directive
    relating to freedom to provide services. Moreover, it is                (ii) is the shape unregistrable by virtue thereof if it is
    contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                           shown that the essential features of the shape are
    amendment, Article 49 EC).                                                    attributable only to the technical result or
                                                                            (iii) is some other and, if so, what test appropriate for
(1) OJ L 223 of 21.8.1985, p. 15.
                                                                                determining whether the restriction applies?
                                                                        5. Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive applies to ‘trade marks
                                                                            which consist exclusively of signs or indications which
                                                                            may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity,
                                                                            intended purpose ... of the goods or service’. Article
                                                                            6(1 )(b) of the Directive applies to the use by a third party
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                   of ‘indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity,
(England & Wales), by order of that court of 5 May 1999,                    intended purpose ... of goods or services’. The word
in the case of Philips Electronics NV against Remington                     ‘exclusively’ thus appears in Article 3(1)(c) and is omitted
                    Consumer Products Ltd                                   in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive? On a proper interpret-
                                                                            ation of the Directive, does this omission mean that, even
                                                                            if a mark consisting of the shape of goods is validly
                         (Case C-299/99)                                    registered, it is not infringed by virtue of Article 6(1)(b) in
                                                                            circumstances where
                         (1999/C 299/13)
                                                                            (i) the use of the shape of goods complained of is and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            would be taken as an indication as to the kind of goods
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                           or the intended purpose thereof and
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/14                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
     (ii) a substantial proportion of the relevant trace and            — declare TF1’s action inadmissible in so far as it is directed
          public believe that goods of that shape come from the              against the Commission’s failure to act pursuant to Article
          trade mark proprietor, absent a statement to the                   90 of the EC Treaty;
          contrary?
                                                                        — order TF1 to pay the costs of the proceedings before the
6. Does the exclusive right granted by Article 5(1 ) extend to               Court of Justice and give a new ruling on the costs of the
     enable the proprietor to prevent third parties using ident-             proceedings before the Court of First Instance, limiting the
     ical or similar signs in circumstances where that use was               order against the Commission so that it is commensurate
     not such as to indicate origin or is it limited so as to                with the outcome of the present appeal.
     prevent only use which wholly or in part does indicate
     origin?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
7. Is use of an allegedly infringing shape of goods, which is
     and would be seen as an indication as to the kind of goods
     or the intended purpose thereof, nonetheless such as to            The Court of First Instance erred in its interpretation of Article
     indicate origin if a substantial proportion of the relevant        90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC): It was wrong of the
     trade and public believe that goods of the shape complai-          Court to lay down, somewhat dogmatically, the principle that
     ned of come from the trade mark proprietor absent a                the purpose of the power conferred upon the Commission by
     statement to the contrary?                                         Article 90 of the EC Treaty is to protect the rights of
                                                                        individuals. On that premise, the Court of First Instance
                                                                        adopted the general view that an individual must be entitled to
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to           bring an effective legal action against decisions which are
    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade         capable of adversely effecting rights recognised by the Treaties.
    marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).                                   By implying that an action for failure to act must lie, so that
                                                                        the principle of effective legal action may be observed, when
                                                                        Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty is directly effective and can
                                                                        therefore be relied on in proceedings before national courts to
                                                                        set aside State measures falling within that provision, the Court
                                                                        of First Instance misinterpreted Article 90.
Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
ered on 3 June 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-17/96 between Télévision                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission of the European                 Hamburg by order of that court of 15 July 1999 in the case
       Communities supported by the French Republic                     of OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Hamburg-St Annen
                         (Case C-302/99 P)
                                                                                (Case C-307/99)
                          (1999/C 299/14)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/15)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-17/96              European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission              (Finance Court) Hamburg of 15 July 1999, which was received
of the European Communities supported by the French                     at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a preliminary
Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the                 ruling in the case of OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v
European Communities on 10 August 1999 by the Com-                      Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen on the following question:
mission of the European Communities, represented by Giulia-
no Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and Klaus Wiedner, of its
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Is the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               (EEC) No 404/93 (1), as amended by Regulation (EC)
                                                                        No 1637/98 (2), inapplicable on the ground of breach of
                                                                        Articles I and XIII of GATT (1994), individuals being able to
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             rely thereon in court proceedings?
— set aside the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by the
     Court of First Instance in Case T-17/96 Télévision Française       (1) OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1.
     1 SA ‘TF1’ v Commission, in so far as it was held that             (2) OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28.
     TF1’s action was admissible in as much as it was directed
     against the Commission’s failure to act pursuant to Article
     90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86);


title: Case T-82/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/28

         Action brought on 20 February 2015 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission
   (Case T-82/15)
   (2015/C 155/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA (Amarousio, Greece) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler and G. Pandey, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the following acts, to the extent that the Court finds that the acts produce legal effects and to the extent that these acts refuse the eligibility of claims made by the applicant under the Grant Agreement with the reference number project 216837 ATRACO, concluded within the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration services (2007-2013), and purport to impose on the applicant an obligation to repay funds received and to pay liquidated damages:

                           —

                           Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 with reference number ARES (2014) 4162021;

                           —

                           Commission decision contained in the debit note of 23 October 2012 with the reference number ARES (2012) 1248814;

                           —

                           Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 without a reference number;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of article 41.1-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to be heard
               The applicant puts forward that the Commission has acknowledged that the original audit procedure entailed a violation of its right to be heard, and that on this basis, the Commission decided to re-open the case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and a violation of the applicant’s legitimate expectations
               The applicant puts forward that the decision to reopen the audit procedure entailed a legitimate expectation that any new decision would be based on facts relating to the substance of the audit, and not on procedural rules that would have applied to the submission of documentation in the original audit procedure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of article 41.2.c of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by giving an insufficient statement of reasons
               The applicant puts forward that the statement of reasons given by the Commission in its review decision was insufficient as it only concerned one of two contested issues and as it only in a superficial manner referred to the submitted documentation as being insufficient.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
               Finally, the applicant puts forward that in the absence of any documentation as to the outcome of the re-opened audit procedure and therefore also the opportunity for the applicant to present its case before a revised decision was taken, the review decision of the Commission, and in consequence the original audit decision must be regarded as expressions of a manifest error of assessment and as adopted in violation of the applicant’s right to be heard.


title: Case T-638/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v OHIM — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/50

         Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v OHIM — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)
   (Case T-638/15)
   (2016/C 016/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: E. Baud, P. Marchiset, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Laboratories Ltd (Barry, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALCOLOCK’ — Community trade mark No 8 443 301

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2015 in Case R 1323/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare valid the CTM Trademark owned and registered in the name of Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International), Inc.;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(2) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, Article 10(2) of Directive No 2008/95 and Article 19(2) of TRIPS, lack of motivation and misrepresentation of the facts;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and insufficient motivation;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 TFEU and violation of the definition of genuine use pursuant to Regulation No. 207/2009.


title: Case C-345/99: Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
20.11.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 333/19
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Com-                           Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French                    mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                              Republic                                                          Duchy of Luxembourg
                          (Case C-345/99)                                                           (Case C-346/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/41)
                          (1999/C 333/40)
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Court of Justice on 17 September 1999 by the Commission of                ties on 17 September 1999 by the Commission of the
the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa,                 European Communities, represented by Richard B. Wain-
Legal Adviser, and Hélène Michard, of its Legal Service, acting           wright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.             as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
— declare that, by applying to vehicles used by taxable                   — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     persons carrying on the activity of driving instructors the              administrative measures necessary in order to comply
     condition that, in order for such persons to be able to                  with Commission Directive 96/65/EC of 11 October 1996
     exercise their right to deduct the VAT charged on their                  adapting to technical progress for the fourth time Council
     initial acquisition of those vehicles, the vehicles in question          Directive 88/379/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
     must be used exclusively for that activity, the French                   regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                      States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May                   of dangerous preparations and modifying Directi-
     1977 (1);                                                                ve 91/442/EEC on dangerous preparations the packaging
                                                                              of which must be fitted with child-resistant fastenings (1),
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 or by failing in any event to inform the Commission of the
                                                                              measures adopted, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                              failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive authorises Member States
to retain all the exclusions relating to the deductibility of tax         Pleas in law and main arguments
provided for under their national laws on the date of entry
into force of that directive. On the date in question, the French         On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely
legislation excluded from deduction all private vehicles, with            31 May 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not yet
the sole exception of vehicles used for public passenger                  implemented the provisions necessary to comply with the
transport.                                                                directive.
With effect from 1 January 1993, the French legislation                   (1) OJ L 265 of 18.10.1996, p. 15.
introduced a right of deduction in respect of vehicles used for
driving instruction purposes. However, that right is restricted
to vehicles used exclusively for that activity.
According to Article 17(2) of the directive, the right to deduct
must arise where the goods concerned are used by the taxable
person for the purposes of his taxable transactions; that right           Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-
cannot be restricted to goods used exclusively for the activity              mission of the European Communities against Ireland
in question.
                                                                                (Case C-347/99)
A Member State may not establish its own criteria for
application of the deduction by limiting the scope of a national                                    (1999/C 333/42)
exclusion of the right to deduct.
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities on 20 September 1999
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17.5.1977 (OJ L 145 of                by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
    13.6.1977, p. 1.)                                                     by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.


title: Case T-161/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/24

         Action brought on 14 March 2013 — First Islamic Investment Bank v Council
   (Case T-161/13)
   2013/C 141/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: First Islamic Investment Bank Ltd (Labuan, Malaysia) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul paragraph I.I.10 of the Annex to Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) in so far as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Annul paragraph I.I.10 of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55) in so far as the applicant is concerned;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not assist designated entities to violate the provisions of EU regulation on Iran and does not provide financial support to the government of Iran. It is neither being used to channel Iranian oil-related payment. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged Annexes of the Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 are not met in respect of the applicant and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The Council also failed to apply the correct test.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the Council breaches the procedural requirements to give the adequate reasons in the Annexes of Decision 2012/829/CFSP and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 and to respect the rights of defense and the right to effective judicial protection.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicant violates the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-207/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — El Jirari Bouzekri v OHIM — Nike International (NC NICKOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark NC NICKOL — Earlier Community figurative mark NIKE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — El Jirari Bouzekri v OHIM — Nike International (NC NICKOL)
   (Case T-207/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark NC NICKOL - Earlier Community figurative mark NIKE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94)
   2011/C 331/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: E. Ragot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States of America) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2009 (Case R 554/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Nike International Ltd and Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), of 25 February 2009 (Case R 554/2008-2).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri. Nike International shall pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-367/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 331/12              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.11.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te                 Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
’s-Hertogenbosch by order of 5 September 2001 in the                        mission of the European Communities against Ireland
case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head of the
section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,                                            (Case C-366/01)
                of the national revenue service
                                                                                (2001/C 331/19)
                         (Case C-364/01)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2001
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                        (2001/C 331/18)                                  by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of European                     Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
Communities by order of 5 September 2001 by the Gerechts-                       adapting for the second time to technical progress
hof (District Court) ’s-Hertogenbosch which was received at                     Council Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the
the Court Registry on 24 September 2001, for a preliminary                      laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of
ruling in the case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head               dangerous goods by rail, or in any event by failing to
of the section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,                inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has
of the national revenue service on the following questions:                     failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive,
                                                                         (2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
1.   Is cross-border economic activity at present a precon-
     dition of the application of Community law?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
2.   When a Member State imposes, on inheritance of immov-               Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
     able property situated in that Member State, a charge to            the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
     tax on the value of that property, does Community law               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
     preclude it from allowing deduction of the value of the             period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period
     liability to transfer the legal title to that property where        expired on 1 July 1999 without Ireland having enacted the
     the testator at the time of death was resident in that              provisions necessary to comply with the Directive referred to
     Member State but not where at the time of death he was              in the conclusions of the Commission.
     resident in another Member State?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 169, 5.7.1999, p. 58.
3.   Does it make any difference to the reply to be given to
     Question 2, whether at the time of acquisition of the
     immovable property the testator no longer resided in the
     Member State in which the property is situated?
                                                                         Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
4.   Is the distribution of the testator’s capital as between the                                       ic Republic
     State in which the property is situated, the State of
     residence and any other States relevant to Question 2?
                                                                                (Case C-367/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/20)
5.   If so, in which State is a capital investment which is
     constituted by a claim under current-accounting arrange-
     ments on a limited company such as that described in
     paragraph 2.4 invested?                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Sep-
                                                                         tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by Antonio Caeiros, legal Adviser, and Panos
                                                                         Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
                                                                         Legal Service.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331/13
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                         Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and S. Terstal,
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             acting as Agents.
      Commission, within the time limit laid down, the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply fully with Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio
      equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment
      and the mutual recognition of their conformity, the                1.    Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/289751 of
      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under             11 July 2001 relating to Aid Measure No C 56/2001 on
      the EC Treaty,                                                           the granting of State aid in the area of maritime transport
                                                                               to the activities of Netherlands tug boats in internal waters
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                            and seaports within the EU (by which the Commission
                                                                               informs the Netherlands of its decision to initiate the
                                                                               procedure set out in Article 88(2) EC);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member               Pleas in law and main arguments
State to which they are addressed.
                                                                         —     Decision contrary to Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC)
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member                  No 659/1999: the Commission does not have the power
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or                to classify, as a new aid measure, a measure that has
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out                already been approved. If the Commission, in the exercise
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions               of its duties relating to the continuous monitoring of
of the Community.                                                              existing aid measures, were able, whether of its own
                                                                               motion or by reason of a complaint, to classify such an
                                                                               aid measure immediately and with retroactive effect as a
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt                 new aid measure, that would be contrary to the system
measures to comply with the abovementioned Directive.                          laid down in Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 659/1999.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic                    The Commission has in no way decided that the appli-
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-                cation of ‘tax incentives’ and ‘taxation according to
ation of the Directive at issue into Greek law.                                tonnage’ to the activities of tug boats in ports and internal
                                                                               waters within the European Union is not covered by its
                                                                               decision approving the aid measure, with the result that
(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10.                                                  the Commission cannot now decide to consider such
                                                                               application as constituting a new aid measure. The
                                                                               Commission’s reasoning that there is now a case of new
                                                                               aid, on the ground that the Netherlands Government
                                                                               formally agreed to the Commission proposal to adopt
                                                                               appropriate measures, within the period specified for that
                                                                               purpose, which expired on 5 January 1999, in order to
                                                                               bring the existing aid measures into line with the
                                                                               Guidelines, which might suggest that the Netherlands aid
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Kingdom of                          measures, as approved, had been brought into line with
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European                         the Guidelines and were compatible with them, is without
                           Communities                                         basis in Article 88 EC or Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
                         (Case C-368/01)                                       The Commission’s reasoning in this regard is also entirely
                                                                               illogical. Assuming that the Netherlands Government had
                                                                               intended to notify the Commission that the Netherlands
                         (2001/C 331/21)                                       aid measures in question had been brought into line with
                                                                               the Guidelines and were thus in accordance with the
                                                                               conditions laid down therein, that must naturally also
                                                                               have been done on the basis of the Netherlands Govern-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      ment’s knowledge of the interpretation of the Guidelines
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   at that time.


title: Case T-543/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PRANAYUR — Earlier Community word mark AYUR and earlier Community figurative marks Ayur, Ayur Naturals Herbals and Aanb — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2015 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)
   (Case T-543/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PRANAYUR - Earlier Community word mark AYUR and earlier Community figurative marks Ayur, Ayur Naturals Herbals and Aanb - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Colombo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 638/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Three-N-Products Private Ltd and Munindra Holding BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Three-N-Products Private Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-488/12 to C-491/12 and C-526/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Nagy Sándor (C-488/12) v Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal, Lajos Tiborné Böszörményi (C-489/12), Róbert Gálóczhi-Tömösváry (C-490/12), Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay (C-491/12) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal and Józsefné Ványai (C-526/12) v Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  — Implementation of Union law  — Failure to implement Union law  — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/3

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Nagy Sándor (C-488/12) v Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal, Lajos Tiborné Böszörményi (C-489/12), Róbert Gálóczhi-Tömösváry (C-490/12), Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay (C-491/12) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal and Józsefné Ványai (C-526/12) v Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal
   (Joined Cases C-488/12 to C-491/12 and C-526/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling  - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  - Implementation of Union law  - Failure to implement Union law  - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 102/03
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nagy Sándor(C-488/12), Lajos Tiborné Böszörményi (C-489/12), Róbert Gálóczhi-Tömösváry (C-490/12), Magdolna Margit Szabadosné Bay (C-491/12) Józsefné Ványai (C-526/12)

      Defendants: Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-488/12), Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-489/12, C-490/12, C-491/12), Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal (C-526/12)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation on the status of officials.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary).

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013


title: Case T-605/11: Action brought on 29 November 2011 — Novartis v OHIM — Organic (BIOCERT)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/31

         Action brought on 29 November 2011 — Novartis v OHIM — Organic (BIOCERT)
   (Case T-605/11)
   2012/C 32/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dr. Organic Ltd (Swansea, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 September 2011 in case R 1030/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BIOCERT’, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 7134984

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian trade mark registration No 136273 of the word mark ‘BIOCEF’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) misinterpreted general principles laid down by the European courts and wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion between ‘BIOCEF’ and ‘BIOCERT’; and (ii) wrongly based its decision on facts which have not been forwarded by the parties of the proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 1995 in Case C-216/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil Treaty obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration)

text:
No C 268/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
and women as regards access to employment, vocational                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
training and promotion, and working conditions.                                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
( 1 ) OJ No C 174 , 26 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                        in Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 (references for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie): F. G. Roders
                                                                        BV and Others v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en
                                                                                Accijnzen (*)
                                                                        (Excise duties on wine — Discriminatory internal taxation
                                                                                — Benelux system)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              95/C 268/08 )
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 13 July 1995                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case        C-216/94 : Commission of the             European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( 1 )                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Failure to fulfil Treaty obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC                      published in the European Court Reports)
— Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion ofprofessional education and training ofat least
                       three years ' duration)                          In Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 : references to the
                            ( 95/C 268/07 )
                                                                        Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty from the
                                                                        Tariefcommissie ( Administrative Court for Customs and
                                                                        Excise ), Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         proceedings pending before that court between F. G. Roders
                                                                        BV ( C-367/93 to C-370/93 ), RSK Internationale
                                                                        Expeditieen Vervoeronderneming BV ( C-371/93 and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            C-372/93 ), Damco van Swieten BV ( C-373/93 and
           published in the European Court Reports)                     C-377/93 ), VGL Internationale Expeditie BV ( C-374/93
                                                                        and C-375/93 ), Zaans Veem BV ( C-376/93 ) and Inspecteur
In Case C-216/94 : Commission of the European                           der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen — on the interpretation of
Communities ( agent: Marie-José Jonczy ) v. Kingdom of                  Article 95 of the EEC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
Belgium ( agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a                     composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber,
declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed                 P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris and
period the measures necessary to comply with Council                    J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro,
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                    Advocate-General; H. A. Rùhl , Principal Administrator, for
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 , in
                                                                        which it rules that :
awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years' duration ( OJ No L 19 , p . 16 ),
and, in the alternative, by not notifying such measures to the          1 , a Member State may not rely on Article 233 of the EEC
Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                  Treaty in order to avoid its obligations under Article 95
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth                          of that Treaty where this is not indispensable for the
 Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of                    good functioning of the Benelux system;
the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
 ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                      2 , the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EEC Treaty is to
judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it rules:                                be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national
                                                                             court, having regard to the criteria identified by the
                                                                             Court of Justice, to assess whether:
 1 , by not adopting within the prescribed period the
      measures necessary to comply with Council Directive                    — products such as, on the one hand, red table wine,
       89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system                         quality red wines produced in specified regions,
      for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                           sherry, madeira and vermouth and, on the other
      awarded on completion of professional education and                        hand, still fruit wines whose alcoholic strength does
       training ofat least three years ' duration, the Kingdom of                not exceed 15% vol, are similar;
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
       Treaty;                                                               — products such as champagne and sparkling fruit
                                                                                wines whose alcoholic strength does not exceed
 2 , the Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.                         15% vol are similar.
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                       3 . The second paragraph of Article 95 is to be interpreted
                                                                             as meaning that, in order to assess the compatibility ofa
                                                                             fiscal charge, account must be taken of the impact of
                                                                             that charge on the competitive relationships between the


title: Case F-6/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Bourtembourg v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Concept of habitual residence — Permanent or habitual centre of interests — Temporary residence for the purpose of study — Place where professional activity is pursued — Fixed term employment relationship)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Bourtembourg v Commission
   (Case F-6/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Concept of habitual residence - Permanent or habitual centre of interests - Temporary residence for the purpose of study - Place where professional activity is pursued - Fixed term employment relationship)
   2013/C 38/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Julien Bourtembourg (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Dony, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and V. Joris, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 May 2011 refusing to grant Mr Bourtembourg the expatriation allowance;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bourtembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 22.