title: Action brought on 20 July 1995 by INEF - Instituto Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-151/95)

text:
No C 268/26          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
10 August 1982, should be penalized by payment of                     the conditions to which the Commission made subject
damages to compensate for the non-material damage                     approval of the programme in question. The applicant
suffered, to which should be added reimbursement of the               affirms in this respect that it has scrupulously complied with
fees of the doctors whom he was obliged to consult in the             both the rules and the conditions and stresses in particular
course of this procedure .                                            the fact that there was never any mention of any prohibition
                                                                      whatsoever on subcontracting. The applicant also claims
                                                                      that, in the present case, there has been a breach of the
                                                                      legitimate expectations flowing from the initial approval of
                                                                      the project.
Action brought on 20 July 1995 by INEF — Instituto
Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda, against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case T-151 /95 )
                         ( 95/C 268/55 )                              Action brought on 24 July 1995 by Odette Nicos Petrides
                                                                      Co Inc against the Commission of the European
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                   Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-152/95 )
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                ( 95/C 268/56 )
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1995 by
INEF — Instituto Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda,                               (Language of the case: French)
whose registered office is at 85 Rua Breiner, Porto,
represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova de Gaia              An action against the Commission of the European
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Chambers of Dr Jacques Schroeder, Faltz & Associés, 6 Rue             Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1995 by
Heinrich Heine, Luxembourg.                                           Odette Nicos Petrides Co Inc, established at Kavala
                                                                      ( Greece ), represented by Edouard Didier and Joël Grange,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— annul the decision of the Commission of 2 December
                                                                      at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde .
     1991 , notified to the applicant by a letter from the
     Commission of 12 May 1995 ,                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                             — declare that the Commission has incurred liability
                                                                           pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Treaty of Rome,
The applicant, a Portuguese sociedade por quotas ( limited            — consequently, order the Commission to make good the
liability company ), challenges a decision of the Commission               damage suffered by the applicant and to pay to the latter
in which it decided not to consider eligible, within the                   the sum of ECU 20 403 788 ,
meaning of the Community rules on the European Social
Fund ( ESF) programmes, certain expenditure in respect of a           — order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
training programme intended for 2 740 young persons . On                   expenses, evidence of which will be supplied at a later
the basis of that decision, DAFSE ( Departamento para                      date .
Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu — the Portuguese
 European Social Fund Agency) required the applicant to                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 repay Esc 17 323 265 and Esc 14 173 581 in connection
 with the contributions of the European Social Fund and the            The applicant, a company incorporated under Greek law,
 Portuguese State respectively in the context of financing the         engaged primarily in the processing and sale of tobacco in
 aforementioned programme .                                            Greece and abroad, claims compensation for the damage
                                                                       suffered by it as a result of the Commission's refusal , in June,
 The applicant alleges in the first place that Article 190 of the      August and November 1990 , to allocate to the applicant
 Treaty has been infringed since the contested decision does           certain consignments of tobacco held by the Greek
 not state any reasons or grounds whatsoever for finding not           intervention agency, despite the fact that it had offered the
 eligible the expenditure in question .                                best terms . Thereafter, it was not until 11 months later that
                                                                       those stocks were again placed on the market, but on terms
 Furthermore, the decision is contrary to the rights of the            which a medium-sized undertaking such as the applicant
 defence of the applicant since it was adopted without the             could not possibly fulfil. The Commission decided to sell
 applicant having been heard beforehand.                               105 986 276 kg, divided into 11 consignments. Each of
 Thirdly, contrary to Article 6 of Regulation (EEC)                    those consignments comprised quantities of tobacco of a
 No 2950/83 , the Commission did not give a hearing to the             specified variety which were held by the intervention
 Portuguese State before taking the disputed decision.                 agencies of the various Member States of the Community
                                                                       concerned . That consolidation made it virtually impossible
 Finally, the applicant alleges that there has been an                 for small and medium-sized undertakings to have access to
 infringement of the applicable Community rules as well as of          the tobacco in question, in view of the considerable volumes


title: Case C-208/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin by order of that court of 11 April 2005 in ITC Innovative Technology Center GmbH v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin by order of that court of 11 April 2005 in ITC Innovative Technology Center GmbH v Bundesagentur für Arbeit
   (Case C-208/05)
   (2005/C 171/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Berlin (Germany) of 11 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ITC Innovative Technology Center GmbH and Bundesagentur für Arbeit on the following questions:

               1.

               To what extent are rules of Community law protecting freedom of movement, particularly Articles 18 EC and 39 EC and Articles 3 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, (1) infringed by an interpretation of the second sentence of paragraph 421(g)(1) of Book III of the Sozialgesetzbuch-Arbeitsförderung (Social Law Code provisions on the promotion of employment) ('SGB III') to the effect that employment covered by compulsory social security means only employment that comes within the scope of application of the Sozialgesetzbuch?

               2.

                           a)

                           To what extent is it possible and necessary to interpret the provision in conformity with European law so as to avoid an infringement as described in Question 1?

                           b)

                           If an interpretation in conformity with Community law should not be possible or necessary, to what extent does the second sentence of paragraph 421(g)(1) of SGB III infringe rules of Community law protecting freedom of movement?

               3.

               To what extent are rules of Community law protecting competition and freedom to provide services, particularly Articles 49 EC, 50 EC and 87 EC in conjunction with Articles 81 EC, 85 EC and 86 EC, or other rules of Community law, infringed by an interpretation of the second sentence of paragraph 421(g)(1) of SGB III to the effect that employment covered by compulsory social security means only employment that comes within the scope of application of the Sozialgesetzbuch?

               4.

                           a)

                           To what extent is it possible and necessary to interpret the provision in conformity with European law so as to avoid an infringement as described in Question 3?

                           b)

                           If an interpretation in conformity with Community law should not be possible or necessary, to what extent does the second sentence of paragraph 421(g)(1) of SGB III infringe Community law inasmuch as the free movement of workers is not protected?

      (1)  OJ, English Special 1968(II), p. 475.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2000 in Case C-302/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Manfred Sehrer v Bundesknappschaft (Freedom of movement for workers — Social security — Sickness insurance contributions levied by a Member State on supplementary retirement pensions payable under an agreement in another Member State — Basis for calculating contributions — Taking into account of contributions already deducted in that other Member State)

text:
C 259/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             9.9.2000
(Agents: E: Röder and C.-D. Quassowski) — application for a                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
declaration that, by allowing, contrary to Article 2 of Com-
mission Regulation (EEC) No 2252/90 of 31 July 1990 con-
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
cerning the methods of implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2060/90 on transitional measures concerning trade
with the German Democratic Republic in the agriculture and                                           of 15 June 2000
fisheries sector (OJ 1990 L 203, p. 61), goods for which a
refund had been granted on their importation from the                      in Case C-302/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Netherlands to be brought into the Federal Republic of                     the Bundessozialgericht): Manfred Sehrer v Bundes-
Germany without a levy corresponding to the Community                                                 knappschaft (1)
level of prices being charged and made available to the
Community and by abolishing all customs formalities in inter-
German trade and by not adopting the measures required to                  (Freedom of movement for workers — Social security —
implement Regulation No 2252/90, the Federal Republic of                   Sickness insurance contributions levied by a Member State
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty           on supplementary retirement pensions payable under an
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de                 agreement in another Member State — Basis for calculating
Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as President               contributions — Taking into account of contributions
of the Fifth Chamber, L Sevón (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,                            already deducted in that other Member State)
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 Feb-                                        (2000/C 259/03)
ruary 2000, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.     Declares that, by allowing, contrary to Article 2 of Commission     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       Regulation (EEC) No 2252/90 of 31 July 1990 concerning                                 in the European Court Reports)
       the methods of implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
       No 2060/90 on transitional measures concerning trade with
       the German Democratic Republic in the agriculture and fisheries     In Case C-302/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
       sector (OJ 1990 L 203, p. 61), goods for which a refund had         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundessozialge-
       been granted on their exportation from the Netherlands to be        richt, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
       brought into the Federal Republic of Germany without a levy         pending before that court between Manfred Sehrer and
       corresponding to the Community level of prices being charged        Bundesknappschaft, joined party: Landesversicherungsanstalt
       and made available to the Community and by abolishing all           für das Saarland — on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 and
       customs formalities in inter-German trade and by not adopting       49 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC,
       the measures required to implement Regulation No 2252/90,           39 EC and 40 EC), Article 50 of the EC Treaty (now Article 41
       the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its            EC), Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
       obligations under the EC Treaty;                                    Article 42 EC) and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                           security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                           persons and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                           Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) —
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.            the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
                                                                           Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
                                                                           chet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-
                                                                           Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                precludes a Member State from calculating the sickness insurance
                                                                           contributions of a retired worker subject to its legislation on the basis
                                                                           of the gross amount of the supplementary retirement pension payable
                                                                           under an agreement which that worker draws in another Member
                                                                           State, without taking account of the fact that a part of the gross
                                                                           amount of that pension has already been deducted by way of sickness
                                                                           insurance contributions in the latter State.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.


title: Case C-444/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus v Comune di Venezia and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Article 3(3) — Plans and programmes which require an environmental assessment only where the Member States determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects — Validity in the light of the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Meaning of use of ‘small areas at local level’ — National legislation referring to the size of the areas concerned)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus v Comune di Venezia and Others
   (Case C-444/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(3) - Plans and programmes which require an environmental assessment only where the Member States determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects - Validity in the light of the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Meaning of use of ‘small areas at local level’ - National legislation referring to the size of the areas concerned))
   (2017/C 053/17)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus

      Defendants: Comune di Venezia, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Regione Veneto, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero della Difesa — Capitaneria di Porto di Venezia, Agenzia del Demanio

      Intervener: Società Ca’ Roman Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The examination of the first question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, in the light of the provisions of the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that directive, must be interpreted to the effect that the term ‘small areas at local level’ in paragraph 3 must be defined with reference to the size of the area concerned where the following conditions are fulfilled:

                           —

                           the plan or programme is prepared and/or adopted by a local authority, as opposed to a regional or national authority, and

                           —

                           that area inside the territorial jurisdiction of the local authority is small in size relative to that territorial jurisdiction.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case T-222/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2011 — Ineos Healthcare v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALPHAREN — Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2011 — Ineos Healthcare v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-222/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALPHAREN - Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2011/C 89/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ineos Healthcare Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2009 (Case R 1897/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Ineos Healthcare Ltd

      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 24 March 2009 (Case R 1897/2007-2) as regards the goods in the following categories: ‘Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations containing magnesium iron hydroxy carbonate or hydrotalcite or derivatives of these compounds’, ‘Phosphate binders for use in the treatment of hyperphosphataemia’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ineos Healthcare Ltd;

               4.

               Orders Ineos Healthcare to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-310/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 August 2009 — Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique v Société Accor

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 4 August 2009 — Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique v Société Accor
   (Case C-310/09)
   2009/C 233/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la fonction publique

      Defendant: Société Accor

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Must Articles 56 and 43 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a tax regime intended to eliminate economic double taxation of dividends which:

                                       (i)

                                       allows a parent company to set off against the advance payment, for which it is liable when it redistributes to its shareholders dividends paid by its subsidiaries, the tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends if they come from a subsidiary established in France,

                                       (ii)

                                       but does not offer that option if those dividends come from a subsidiary established in another Member State of the European Community, since, in that case, that regime does not give entitlement to a tax credit applied to the distribution of those dividends by that subsidiary on the ground that such a regime would in itself, with respect to the parent company, infringe the principles of the free movement of capital or freedom of establishment?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must those articles be interpreted as meaning that they none the less preclude such a regime if the shareholders position must also be taken into account on the ground that, given the making of the advance payment, the amount of the dividends received from its subsidiaries and redistributed by the parent company to its shareholders will differ according to the location of those subsidiaries, in France or in another Member State of the European Communities, with the result that that regime deters shareholders from investing in the parent company and, therefore, affects the raising of capital by that company and is likely to deter that company from allocating capital to subsidiaries established in Member States other than France or from creating such subsidiaries in those States?

               2.

               If the answer to I1 or I2 is in the affirmative and if Articles 56 and 43 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the advance payment tax regime described above and that, therefore, the administration is, in principle, required to reimburse the sums received on the basis of that regime in so far as they were received contrary to Community law, does that duty, in such a regime which does not of itself lead to the passing on of a tax onto a third party by the person liable for the tax preclude:

                           (a)

                           the administration from opposing the reimbursement of the sums paid by the parent company on the ground that that reimbursement would lead to the unjust enrichment of the parent company,

                           (b)

                           and, if the answer is in the negative, the fact that the sum paid by the parent company does not constitute an accounting or tax charge for it but is set off only against the total of the sums which may be redistributed to its shareholders can be pleaded in support of an argument that that sum should not be reimbursed to the company?

               3.

               Taking account of the answer to the questions set out in I and II, do the Community principles of equivalence and effectiveness preclude the reimbursement of sums which ensure the application of the same tax regime to dividends redistributed by the parent company, whether those dividends originate from sums distributed by its subsidiaries established in France in another Member State of the European Community being subject to the condition, (apart, where relevant, in the case of stipulations in a bilateral convention applicable between France and the Member State where the subsidiary is established relating to the exchange of information) that the person liable for the tax furnishes evidence which is in its sole possession and relating with respect to each dividend concerned, in particular to the rate of taxation actually applied and the amount of tax actually paid on profits made by its subsidiaries established in the Member States of the European Community other than France, whereas, with respect to subsidiaries established in France that evidence, known to the administration, is not required?


title: Case T-5/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/19

         Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)
   (Case T-5/12)
   2012/C 65/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, 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) (OHIM) of 7 November 2011 in Case R 992/2011-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks Department) of 11 March 2011 relating to Community trade mark application CTM 9094459 in so far as the application was rejected;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Wash & Coffee’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 37 and 43

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as OHIM failed to examine the facts on which it based its decision in the manner required and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive


title: Case C-199/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ciclat Soc. coop v Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45 — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Public procurement — Conditions for exclusion from a procedure for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions — Social security contributions payment certificate — Correction of irregularities)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/7

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ciclat Soc. coop v Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture
   (Case C-199/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45 - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Public procurement - Conditions for exclusion from a procedure for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions - Social security contributions payment certificate - Correction of irregularities))
   (2017/C 014/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ciclat Soc. coop

      Defendants: Consip SpA, Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti Pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

      Intervening parties: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), Team Service SCARL, as the representative of ATI-Snam Lazio Sud Srl and Ati-Linda Srl, Consorzio Servizi Integrati

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges a contracting authority to consider an infringement relating to the payment of social security contributions, recorded in a certificate requested by a contracting authority on its own initiative and issued by the social security institutions, to be a ground for exclusion, where that infringement existed on the date of the participation in a tender procedure, even if it no longer existed at the time of the award or of the verification carried out on the contracting authority’s own initiative.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case T-473/11: Action brought on 30 August 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/45

         Action brought on 30 August 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Weleda Trademark (MENOCHRON)
   (Case T-473/11)
   2011/C 311/84
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Weleda Trademark AG (Arlesheim, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action by the company Longevity Health Products Inc. admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 July 2011 in Case R 2345/2010-4 and reject the opposition by Weleda Trademark AG to the trade mark registration CTM 005050752; and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Longevity Health Products, Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MENOCHRON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Weleda Trademark AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘MENODORON’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 44.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) because there is no likelihood that the marks at issue would be confused.

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


title: Case C-244/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17 — Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC — Article 1 — Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC — Article 1 — Refund or deduction of VAT — Taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in the Member State concerned)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-244/08) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17 - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Article 1 - Thirteenth Directive 86/560/EEC - Article 1 - Refund or deduction of VAT - Taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in the Member State concerned)
   2009/C 220/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, G. De Bellis and G. Palmieri, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) and Article 1 of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory — Refund of VAT to a taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-Member State but having a fixed establishment in Italy

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Italian Republic has failed, in relation to the refund of value added tax to a taxable person residing in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in the Member State concerned, to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, and Article 1 of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory, by requiring a taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-Member State, but having a fixed establishment in Italy and who, during the period at issue, supplied goods and services in Italy, to apply for a refund of input value added tax according to the mechanism provided by those directives rather than deduct it where the purchase in respect of which repayment of that tax is sought is made not through that fixed establishment, but directly by the principal establishment of that taxable person;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.


title: Case T-165/15: Action brought on 7 April 2015 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services/Commission

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/18

         Action brought on 7 April 2015 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services/Commission
   (Case T-165/15)
   (2015/C 228/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland); and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, and G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1(1), 1(2), and (insofar as these concern Articles 1(1) and 1(2)) Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the European Commission decision of 23 July 2014 in State aid case SA.22614 finding that Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services had received unlawful State aid from the Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de Pau-Béarn, incompatible with the internal Market; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration, and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants access to the file of the investigation and put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission wrongly imputed the measures at issue to the State.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services, erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, failed to assess the marketing agreements from the separate market economy operator viewpoints of the owner and the operator of the airport, based its conclusions on incomplete and inappropriate data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, wrongly based its assessment on agreed routes only, and disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair. In any event, even if there was an advantage to the applicants, the Commission failed to establish that the advantage was selective.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging on a subsidiary basis a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and AMS was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of Pau airport instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and AMS. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, the Commission failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through Pau airport’s (supposedly) below-cost payment flows. Finally, the Commission failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the grant of the aid.


title: Case C-597/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-232/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/42

      Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-232/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
      (Case C-597/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the decision of the General Court.

                  —

                  Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul the decision of the Commission (DG Taxation and Customs Union) to reject the bid of the Appellant, filed in response to the Call for Tender (the ‘CfT’) TAXUD/2005/AO-001 for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects of the DG-TAXUD ‘CUST-DEV’ (OJ 2005/S 187-183846) and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder, communicated to the applicant by letter dated 19 June 2006 and award the requested Damages

                  —

                  Alternatively Refer to the General Court the case in order to rule on the substance of the case.

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

                  First, the Appellant submits that he General Court committed an error in law adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article 89 (1) and 98 (1) of the Financial Regulation, and of Article 140 (1) and (2) and Article 141 (2) of the Implementing Rules, of the principles of equality of treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and freedom of competition.

                  Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law misinterpreting, and distorting the submitted evidence.

                  Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by interpreting erroneously the amendment of the Selection Criteria as well as by not examining the existence of numerous manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the tender and by providing insufficient motivation of the attacked Judgment.


title: Case F-83/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — Kalmár v Europol (Staff case — Europol staff — Dismissal — Request for annulment — Payment of remuneration — Effect of judgment ordering annulment)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/51

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — Kalmár v Europol
   (Case F-83/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Europol staff - Dismissal - Request for annulment - Payment of remuneration - Effect of judgment ordering annulment)
   2011/C 252/109
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Kalmár (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: D. C. Coppens, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decisions of Europol of 4 and 24 February 2009 concerning the applicant’s dismissal and his suspension for the period of notice. In addition, application for compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of 4 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol terminated Mr Kalmár’s fixed-term contract, the decision of 24 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol relieved him of the duty to serve his period of notice, and the decision of 18 July 2009 rejecting his complaint;

               2.

               orders Europol to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 5 000 in damages;

               3.

               dismisses the action for the remainder;

               4.

               orders Europol to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Kalmár.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 80.


title: Joined Cases C-72/14 and C-197/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Inspecteur van Rijksbelastingdienst (C-72/14) and T. A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-197/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Applicable legislation — Rhine boatmen — E 101 certificate — Probative value — Reference to the Court — Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Inspecteur van Rijksbelastingdienst (C-72/14) and T. A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-197/14)
   (Joined Cases C-72/14 and C-197/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Applicable legislation - Rhine boatmen - E 101 certificate - Probative value - Reference to the Court - Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling))
   (2015/C 363/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring courts

   Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: X (C-72/14), T. A. van Dijk (C-197/14)

      Defendants: Inspecteur van Rijksbelastingdienst (C-72/14), Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-197/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, and Articles 10c to 11a, 12a and 12b of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State in the form of an E 101 certificate in order to certify that a worker is subject to the social security legislation of that Member State, when that worker comes within the scope of the Agreement of 13 February 1961 concerning the Social Security of Rhine Boatmen, signed at Geneva on 30 November 1979, is not binding on the institutions of other Member States. The fact that the issuing institution did not intend to issue a genuine E 101 certificate but used the standard form of that certificate for administrative reasons is irrelevant in that regard.

               2.

               The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, such as the referring court, is not required to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the sole ground that a lower national court, in a case similar to the one before it and involving the same legal issue, has referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling; nor is it required to wait until an answer to that question has been given.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

      OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-66/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
22.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/19
Rennes, Septième Chambre (Court of Appeal, Rennes, Seventh                    Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
Chamber) of 5 February 2003, received at the Court Registry                   of the European Communities against the French Republic
on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Alain Rousseau against Association Comité Économique                                                (Case C-66/03)
Régional Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL) on the
following questions:                                                                                (2003/C 70/30)
                                                                              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
In view of the provisions of Article 3 of Council Regulation                  2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 (1), where a Member State                          represented by N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for
applies the provisions of Article 15b(1) and (8) of Council                   service in Luxembourg.
Regulation No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 (2) by making certain
production and marketing rules mandatory for producers                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
established within the area of an economic committee who do
not belong to it and by making them liable for all or part of                 (a)   declare that by failing to bring into force and/or inform
the membership fees paid by producers who do belong to it,                          the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrat-
is it admissible and well founded for a farmer engaged in                           ive provisions necessary to comply with Commission
organic farming to invoke the principle of non-discrimination                       Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first
on the ground, in particular, that the rules prescribed by the                      list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in
economic committee in respect of market withdrawal render                           implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
its activity of little or no interest to him.                                       protection of the health and safety of workers from the
                                                                                risks related to chemical agents at work (1) the French
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
                                                                                Treaty, and
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on
     organic production of agricultural products and indications              (b)   order the French Republic to pay the costs of the
     referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198            proceedings.
     of 22.07.1991, p. 1).
( 2) Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on
     the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables            Pleas in law and main arguments
     (OJ L 118 of 20.05.1972, p. 1).
                                                                              The period prescribed for implementation ended on 31 Decem-
                                                                              ber 2001.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ L 142, 16.06.2000, p. 47.


title: Case C-262/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH v Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8710 and Subheading 9305 91 00 — Note 3 to Section XVII and point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 — Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles — Military weapons — Classification of a turret system)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/9

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH v Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien
   (Case C-262/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 8710 and Subheading 9305 91 00 - Note 3 to Section XVII and point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 - Tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles - Military weapons - Classification of a turret system))
   (2016/C 260/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

      Respondent: Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

      Operative part of the judgment

   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 version resulting from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that a turret system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was imported for the production of armoured fighting vehicles and was indeed used subsequently for that purpose, comes under heading 8710 of the Common Nomenclature if it is ‘principally’ intended for use on an armoured fighting vehicle, this being a matter for the referring court to determine on the basis of the objective characteristics and properties of the turret system, without the end use to which it is put in the case at hand being determinant for the purpose of its classification. If that is not the case, that turret system must be classified, as a part or accessory of a ‘military weapon’, under subheading 9305 91 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case F-19/14: Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/41

         Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-19/14)
   2014/C 184/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme by application of the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 May 2013 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, as part of the transfer of those pension rights into the Pension Scheme of the European Institutions (‘PSEUI’) by application of the general implementing provisions (‘GIPs’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-187/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Zutphen (Netherlands)) — Criminal proceedings against Dirk Endendijk (Directive 91/629/EEC — Decision 97/182/EC — Rearing of calves — Individual pens — Prohibition on tethering calves — Meaning of the verb tether — Material and length — Different language versions — Uniform interpretation)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Zutphen (Netherlands)) — Criminal proceedings against Dirk Endendijk
   (Case C-187/07) (1)

   (Directive 91/629/EEC - Decision 97/182/EC - Rearing of calves - Individual pens - Prohibition on tethering calves - Meaning of the verb ‘tether’ - Material and length - Different language versions - Uniform interpretation)
   (2008/C 128/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank Zutphen
   Party in the main proceedings
   Dirk Endendijk
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Zutphen — Interpretation of point 8 of the Annex to Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 28) read in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Commission Decision 97/182/EC of 24 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 91/629 (OJ 1997 L 76, p. 30) — Meaning of ‘tether’
   Operative part of the judgment
   A calf is tethered within the meaning of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, as amended by Commission Decision 97/182/EC of 24 February 1997, where it is tied by a rope, irrespective of the material, length and purpose of that rope.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case F-63/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/28

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-63/15)
   (2015/C 221/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Heinrich Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the defendant’s decision of 4 June 2014 to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment pursuant to a clause in that contract of employment.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               set aside the determination of OHIM, which was communicated by letter from OHIM dated 4 June 2014, to terminate the applicant’s contract as a temporary member of staff at OHIM with a notice period of six months, which began on 4 June 2014;

               —

               order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage arising from the decision of OHIM referred to in paragraph 1 above;

               —

               order OHIM to reinstate the applicant with full restoration of her career advancements which she would have achieved upon continuous further employment and order OHIM to compensate the applicant fully for the material damage suffered by her, in particular by paying all outstanding salary and all other material damage incurred by the applicant as a result of OHIM’s unlawful conduct (after deduction of unemployment benefit received);

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that, in the present situation, for legal or practical reasons the applicant is not reinstated or re-employed under the same conditions as hitherto, order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant by the unlawful termination of her employment, corresponding to the difference between her actual lifetime earnings and the lifetime earnings the applicant would have achieved if the contract had remained in force, taking into account pension benefits and other entitlements;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case C-208/10: Order of the President of the Court of 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-208/10) (1)

   2011/C 63/48
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-234/08: Action brought on 30 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/16

         Action brought on 30 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-234/08)
   (2008/C 183/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicants claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC (1), of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive,

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 363, p. 141.


title: Case C-175/05: Action brought on 19 April 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

         Action brought on 19 April 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
   (Case C-175/05)
   (2005/C 155/13)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michael Shotter and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by exempting all categories of public lending establishments, within the meaning of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that Directive;

               2.

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 1(3) of the Directive defines ‘lending’ in terms of making available for use, for a limited period of time and not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage ‘when it is made through establishments which are accessible to the public’. Article 5(3) allows Member States to exempt ‘certain categories of establishments’ from the payment of remuneration.
   The Irish authorities have relied upon Article 5(3) of the Directive and exempted by Order ‘stated classes of institutions from payment of remuneration in respect of lending in practice’. The scope of this exemption is so wide that it permits all public educational and academic institutions to which the members of the public have access to engage in public lending with the result that all public lending institutions are exempt from the lending right and are also absolved from payment of remuneration.
   The Commission maintains that this situation clearly goes beyond the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 5(3) of the Directive and that Ireland therefore has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61


title: Case T-51/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Fardem Packaging v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Fardem Packaging v Commission
   (Case T-51/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
   2012/C 6/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Fardem Packaging BV (Edam, Netherlands) (represented initially by: F.J. Leeflang and W. Geelhoed, then by F. Leeflang and S. de Boer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fardem Packaging BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-456/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for animal feed phosphates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Applicant’s withdrawal from the settlement procedure — Fines — Obligation to state reasons — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Cooperation — Failure to apply the likely range of fines indicated during the settlement procedure)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2015 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
   (Case T-456/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for animal feed phosphates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Allocation of sales quotas, coordination of prices and conditions of sale and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Applicant’s withdrawal from the settlement procedure - Fines - Obligation to state reasons - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Cooperation - Failure to apply the likely range of fines indicated during the settlement procedure))
   (2015/C 221/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France); and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir and M. Truffier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, B. Mongin and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5001 final of 20 July 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38866 — Animal feed phosphates), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Timab Industries and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2003 In Joined Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01: Eduardo Vieira, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries — Fisheries agreement with Argentina — Community financial aid — Reduction — Actions for annulment — Actions for damages)

text:
C 135/26                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.6.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
                             of 10 April 2003
                                                                              In Joined Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01: Eduardo
                                                                              Vieira, SA and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
in Case T-369/00, Département du Loiret v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                              (Fisheries — Fisheries agreement with Argentina — Com-
                                                                              munity financial aid — Reduction — Actions for annulment
                                                                                — Actions for damages)
(Action for annulment — State aid — Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999 — Article 15 — Limitation period — Recovery
        of aid — Act interrupting the limitation period)                                                 (2003/C 135/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                             (2003/C 135/39)
                                                                              In Joined Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01, Eduardo
                                                                              Vieira, SA, established in Vigo-Pontevedra (Spain), represented
                      (Language of the case: French)                          by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez,
                                                                              lawyers, applicant in Cases T-44/01 and T-126/01, Vieira
                                                                              Argentina, SA, established in Buenos Aires (Argentina), rep-
                                                                              resented by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domíng-
                                                                              uez Pérez, laywers, applicant in Case T-44/01, Pescanova,
                                                                              SA, established in Chapela (Spain), represented by A. Creus
In Case T-369/00: Département du Loiret, represented by                       Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente and S. Rodríguez Artacho, lawyers,
A. Carnelutti, lawyer, supported by Scott SA, established in                  applicant in Case T-119/01, v Commission of the European
Saint-Cloud (France), represented by Sir Jeremy Lever, QC,                    Communities (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Guerra
G. Peretz, Barrister, and R. Griffith, Solicitor, with an address             Fernández): Application, in Case T-44/01, for compensation
for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-                    under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288
pean Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett) — application                EC for damage arising from the suspension of payment of the
for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC                       balance of the financial aid granted to project ARG/ESP/SM/
of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott                   26-94 for the creation of a joint enterprise within the
Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ L 12, p. 1), the Court of First                   framework of the Agreement between the Community and the
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                      Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector; in
of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,                 Case T-119/01, for annulment of the Commission decision of
N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Principal Adminis-                19 March 2001 reducing the aid granted to project ARG/ESP/
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 April 2002, in               SM/17-94 for the purpose of creating a joint enterprise within
which it:                                                                     the framework of the Agreement between the Community and
                                                                              the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries
                                                                              sector; and, in Case T-126/01, for annulment of the Com-
1.     Dismisses the application for annulment of Article 2 of                mission decision of 19 March 2001 reducing the aid granted
       Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the                  to project ARG/ESP/SM/26-94 for the purpose of creating a
       state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark,          joint enterprise within the framework of the Agreement
       in so far as it is founded on infringement by the Commission of        between the Community and the Argentinian Republic on
       Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of                   relations in the sea fisheries sector, the Court of First Instance
       22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application           (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
       of Article [88] of the EC Treaty;                                      and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminis-
                                                                              trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April 2003,
                                                                              in which it:
2.     Orders the remainder of the proceedings to continue;
                                                                              1.     Declares that Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01 are
                                                                                joined for the purposes of the judgment;
3.     Reserves the costs.
                                                                              2.     Dismisses the applications;
                                                                              3.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.01.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001 and C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case T-87/01: Order of the Court of First Instance of  24 November 2005  — Rica Foods v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — Rica Foods v Commission
   (Case T-87/01) (1)

   (2006/C 22/43)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 1997 in Case C-292/95: Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry - Retroactive prolongation - Article 93 (1) of the EC Treaty)

text:
31 . 5 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 166/3
2 . The competent veterinary authority of the Member                   1 . Article 2 (1 ) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      State of origin may, under Council Directive 89/608/                  No 1624/76 of 2 July 1976 concerning special
      EEC of 21 November 1989 on mutual assistance                          arrangements for the payment of aid for skimmed
      between the administrative authorities of the Member                  milk powder denatured or processed into compound
      States and cooperation between the latter and the                     feedingstuffs in the territory of another Member State,
      Commission to ensure the correct application of                       as amended by Article 1 of Commission Regulation
      legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters,                   (EEC) No 1726/79 of 26 July 1979, and Article 10 of
      seek the assistance of the competent veterinary                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1725/79 of 26 July
      authority of the Member State of importation, without                 1979 on the rules for granting aid to skimmed milk
      such a request affecting the right of the official                    processed into compound feedingstuffs and skimmed
      veterinarian in the Member State of origin to                         milk powder intended for feed for calves, in
      designate, for the purposes of the heat treatment to be               conjunction with Article 34 of the EC Treaty, preclude
      carried out, an establishment in the Member State of                  systematic inspections to verify compliance with the
      importation.                                                          conditions as to the composition and quality of
                                                                            skimmed-milk powder intended for processing into
O OJNoC 159,24 . 6 . 1995 .                                                 compound feedingstuffs in another Member State on
                                                                            which entitlement to export refunds depends, where
                                                                            those inspections are carried out, with a view to
                                                                            subsequent export of the goods inspected, inside the
                                                                            exporting State and not at the frontier. However, those
                                                                            provisions do not preclude such inspections if they are
                                                                            carried out only by means of spot checks.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                       2 . A charge levied in respect of systematic inspections
                          of 15 April 1997                                  carried out inside the exporting State with a view to
in Case C-272/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   subsequent export of the goods inspected constitutes a
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Bundesanstalt für Land                     charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties
wirtschaft und Ernährung v. Deutsches Milch-Kontor                          on exports, prohibited under Articles 9 and 12 of the
                               GmbH (M                                      EC Treaty, even if it corresponds to the actual cost of
                                                                            each inspection.
 (Aid for skimmed-milk powder — Systematic inspections
                     — Costs of inspections)
                                                                       O OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                            ( 97/C 166/04 )
                 (Language of the case: German)
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
In Case C-272/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                    of 15 April 1997
 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
 ( Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in           in Case C-292/95 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
 the proceedings pending before that court between                                      the European Communities ( ] )
 Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung and                     (Action for annulment — Framework on State aid to the
 Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH — on the interpretation                   motor vehicle industry — Retroactive prolongation —
 of Article 2 ( 1 ) and (4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                          Article 93 (1 ) of the EC Treaty)
 No 1624/76 of 2 July 1976 concerning special
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/05 )
 arrangements for the payment of aid for skimmed-milk
 powder denatured or processed into compound
 feedingstuffs in the territory of another Member State ( OJ                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
 No L 180, 1976 , p. 9 ), as amended by Article 1 of
 Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1726/79 of 26 July                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  1979 ( OJ No L 199 , 1979 , p. 10 ), on the interpretation of
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 1725/79
  of 26 July 1979 on the rules for granting aid to skimmed
  milk processed into compound feedingstuffs and skimmed               In Case C-292/95 : Kingdom of Spain (Agents : Alberto
  milk powder intended for feed for calves ( OJ No L 199,               Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado ) v.
  1979 , p. 1 ) and on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12, 16         Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
  and 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),                Gerard Rozet and Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) —
  composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the Chamber                   application for annulment of the Commission's decision,
  ( Rapporteur), C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn,                   notified by letter of 6 July 1995 and published in the
 Judges; R Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal              Official Journal of the European Communities ( OJ No
  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             C 284, 1995 , p. 3 ), to prolong, with retroactive effect
  15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:                                 from 1 January 1995 , its decision of 23 December 1992
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/4           | EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       31 . 5 . 97
which had itself prolonged the validity of the Community                References for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry —                  München I by orders of that court of 8 January 1997 in
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. E Mancini,                  the cases of WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                      Vertriebs GmbH v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),                      and WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Ver
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-                                     triebs GmbH v. Franz Attenberger
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                   ( Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97)
given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/07 )
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision, notified by letter of
      6 July 1995, to prolong, with retroactive effect from             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      1 January 1995, the Commission decision of                        European Communities by two orders of the Landgericht
      23 December 1992 which had itself prolonged the                   München I ( Munich I Regional Court) of 8 January 1997,
      validity of the Community framework on State aid to               which were received at the Court Registry on 14 March
      the motor vehicle industry;                                       1997, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of WSC
                                                                        Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and WSC
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Franz Attenberger on the following questions:
0 ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                        1 . Questions on Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) ('):
                                                                             Is Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) to be understood as meaning that it
                                                                             suffices if there is a possibility of the designation being
                                                                             used to indicate the geographical origin, or must that
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                        possibility be likely in the particular case ( in the sense
                          of 4 March 1997                                    that other such undertakings already use that word to
                                                                             designate the geographical origin of their goods of
in Case C-46/96: Federal Republic of Germany v.                              similar type, or at least that there are specific reasons
         Commission of the European Communities ( J )                        to believe that that may be expected in the foreseeable
                   (No need to give a decision)                              future ), or must there even be a need to use that
                                                                             designation to indicate the geographical origin of the
                             ( 97/C 166/06 )                                 goods in question, or must there in addition also be a
                                                                             qualified need for the use of that indication of origin,
                (Language of the case: German)                               for instance because goods of that kind, produced in
                                                                             that region, enjoy a special reputation ?
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                          Is it of significance for a broader or narrower
                                                                             interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) with respect to
                                                                             geographical indications of origin that the effects of
 In Case C-46/96 : Federal Republic of Germany ( Agent:                      the mark are restricted under Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b )?
 Ernst Röder) against Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents: Anders Christian Jessen and Paul F.                   Do geographical indications of origin under Article 3
 Nemitz, with Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch )                        ( 1 ) (c ) cover only those which relate to the
 — application for annulment of Decision C(95 ) 3319 final                   manufacture of the goods at that place, or does trade
 of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning                            in those goods at that place or from that place suffice,
 fiscal aid in the field of depreciation favouring German                    or in the case of the production of textiles does it
 undertakings — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                       suffice if they are designed in the region designated
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                        but then manufactured under contract elsewhere ?
 Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
 ( Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                         2 . Questions on the first sentence of Article 3 (3):
 Schintgen, Judges; Advocate-General, D. Ruiz-Jarabo
 Colomer; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 4 March                      What requirements follow from this provision for the
 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :                            registrability of a descriptive designation under
                                                                              Article 3 ( 1 ) ( c )?
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                              In particular, are the requirements the same in all
                                                                              cases, or are the requirements different according to
 2 . The Commission shall pay the costs.                                      the degree of the need to leave free ?
  (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                           Is in particular the view hitherto taken in the German
                                                                              case-law, namely that in the case of descriptive
                                                                               designations which need to be left free, trade


title: Case T-30/08: Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Oftaltech (OFTASIL)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/30

         Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Oftaltech (OFTASIL)
   (Case T-30/08)
   (2008/C 79/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Oftaltech S.A. (L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2007 (R 599/2007-2) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 19 February 2007 (B 925 554);

               —

               rejection of Community trade mark application No 4 229 274 ‘OFTASIL’;

               —

               holding of oral proceedings;

               —

               an order that OHIM pays the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, a referral of the case back to OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Oftaltech S.A.

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative trade mark ‘OFTASIL’ for goods in Class 5 (application No 4 229 274)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Ophtal’ for goods in Classes 5 and 10 (Community trade mark No 489 948), the word mark ‘Ophtal’ for goods in Class 5 (German trade mark No 800 702) and the word mark ‘OPHTAN’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 (German trade mark No 303 349 033)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 (1) and of the principles to be applied under this provision to examine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.

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


title: Case F-17/13: Action brought on 15 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/30

         Action brought on 15 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-17/13)
   2013/C 123/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the request for employment of the applicant which was made by the OIL.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate for the material damage caused to the applicant by the contested decision; to evaluate the amount corresponding to the difference, from October 2011 until such time as the applicant is recruited to function group III, between the payments corresponding to function group III and those payments which she continued to receive as a member of the contractual staff of function group II, plus corresponding interest from the due date of each months’ pay until the date of their actual payment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.