title: Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2002 in Case T-355/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "TELE AID" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
29.6.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 156/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 March 2002
                          of 17 April 2002
                                                                             in Case T-355/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for
                                                                             Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
in Case T-325/00: Elke Sada v Commission of the Euro-
                       pean Communities (1)                                  (Community trade mark — ‘TELE AID’ — Absolute grounds
                                                                             for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
(Officials — Temporary agent — Unemployment allowance
                             — Refused)                                                                 (2002/C 156/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2002/C 156/39)
                                                                             In Case T-355/00: DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
                                                                             (Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office for
                   (Language of the case: German)                            Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                             Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schen-
                                                                             nen) — action brought against the decision of the Third Board
                                                                             of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000
                                                                             (Case R 142/2000-3) relating to registration of ‘TELE AID’ as
                                                                             a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance
In Case T-325/00: Elke Sada, former temporary agent at                       (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                      R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi
                                                                             and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
Besozzo (Italy), represented by H.-J. Rüber, Rechtsanwalt, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of                  judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:
the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the decision                    1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
of the Commission of 20 December 1999 refusing to grant                            for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
the applicant an unemployment allowance under Article 28a                          Designs) of 12 September 2000 (Case R 142/2000-3) as
of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the                           regards the following categories of goods and services:
European Communities — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on                        —    ‘electrical and electronic devices for transferring speech and
17 April 2002, in which it:                                                             data; stationary and mobile transmission, relay and audio
                                                                                receivers and devices; data processing equipment and parts
                                                                                therefor; navigation devices’ within Class 9;
                                                                                —    ‘operation of a communications network’ within Class 38;
1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                                —    ‘collection, storage, processing and output of information’
                                                                                within Class 42.
2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             2.    As to the remainder, dismisses the action;
                                                                             3.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and one half of the
                                                                                defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
                                                                                own costs.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.


title: Case T-124/13 and T-191/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Italy and Spain v Commission (Languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants — Choice of second language from three languages — Language of communication with candidates in competitions — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Italy and Spain v Commission
   (Case T-124/13 and T-191/13) (1)

   ((Languages - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators and assistants - Choice of second language from three languages - Language of communication with candidates in competitions - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 389/30)
   Language of the case: Italian and Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato) (Case T-124/13) and Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado) (Case T-191/13)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Case T-124/13, by J. Currall, B. Eggers and G. Gattinara and, in Case T-191/13, by J. Curral, J. Baquero Cruz and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant, Italian Republic: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

      Re:

   In Case T-124/13, application for annulment, first, of the notice of open competition, EPSO/AST/125/12, for the drawing up of a reserve recruitment list for assistants in the fields of audit, finance and accounting, and economics and statistics (OJ 2012 C 394 A, p. 1), secondly, of the notice of open competition, EPSO/AST/126/12, for the drawing up of a reserve recruitment list of assistants in the fields of biology, life and health sciences, chemistry, physics and material sciences, nuclear research, civil and mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering and electronics (OJ 2012, C 394 A, p. 11) and, thirdly, of the notice of open competition, EPSO/AD/248/13, for the drawing up of a reserve recruitment list of administrators (AD 6) in the fields of buildings security and engineering in special building techniques (OJ 2013, C 29 A, p. 1), and in Case T-191/13, application for annulment of the notice of open competition, EPSO/AD/248/13.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-124/13 and T-191/13 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls the notice of open competition, EPSO/AST/125/12, for the drawing up of a reserve recruitment list for assistants in the fields of audit, finance and accounting, and economics and statistics, the notice of open competition, EPSO/AST/126/12, for the drawing up of a reserve recruitment list of assistants in the fields of biology, life and health sciences, chemistry, physics and material sciences, nuclear research, civil and mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering and electronics, and the notice of open competition, EPSO/AD/248/13, for the drawing up of a reserve recruitment list of administrators (AD 6) in the fields of buildings security and engineering in special building techniques;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Italian Republic in Case T-124/13 and those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in Case T-191/13;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs relating to its intervention in Case T-124/13.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Susanne Nikolajsen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-98/97)

text:
No C 181 / 18        EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
lodged against the former decision . She points out in that          The applicant claims that the Court should:
regard that the competent director had proposed her
appointment to one of those three posts. Having filled two           — annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
of the posts in question, the appointing authority adopted                rejecting the applicant's request that it give
the contested decision in consequence of the opening of an                consideration to the possible application of
investigation prompted by complaints .                                    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
She advances the following pleas in support of her claims :
                                                                     — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                          adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
— infringement of the provisions of Article 26 of the
                                                                          expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
    Staff Regulations and of Articles 6 and 10 of the
    European Convention for the Protection of Human
    Rights, in that the appointing authority took a                  — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
    decision which seriously affected her administrative
    situation on the basis of facts and documents which              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    had not been placed on her personal file and which
    had not been communicated to her,
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case T- 16/9 7 ( ] ).
— absence of any legal basis for the suspension decision,
    inasmuch as there exists no provision allowing for the           (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
    possible suspension by the appointing authority, on
    any grounds whatever, of a procedure for promotion
    by way of application for a post which has been
    declared vacant,
— contradictory reasoning and manifest error of
    assessment. The applicant observes in that regard that           Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Susanne Nikolajsen
    the investigation is being conducted on the basis of                against the Commission of the European Communities
    acts committed by persons unknown, for which the                                           ( Case T-98/97 )
    applicant cannot, therefore, be held responsible to the
    extent of justifying the suspension of the procedure in                                     ( 97/C 181 /35 )
    issue . A decision based on facts which have not yet
    been established must necessarily arise from irregular                           (Language of the case: French)
    reasoning,
                                                                     An action against the Commission oj the European
— absence of a statement of reasons for the initial                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
    decision of the appointing authority, in that, although          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
    the reasons for rejecting an application for a post do           by Susanne Nikolajsen, residing in Brussels, represented by
    not have to be given until the stage when the                    Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    complaint is rejected, the position must be different            service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
    where the appointing authority decides to suspend the            Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
    procedure for filling a post which has been declared
    vacant ,
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
— abuse of process and misuse of powers .
                                                                     — annul the Commission 's decision of 9 October 1996
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                          Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jacques Verborgh                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                       ( Case T-91 /97 )                                  expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                         ( 97/C 181 /34 )
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                 Case T-16/97 ( M.
by Jacques Verborgh, residing at Aalter ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an          O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.


title: Case T-523/14: Order of the General Court of 27 August 2015 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — Correction of the decision concluding the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/40

         Order of the General Court of 27 August 2015 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)
   (Case T-523/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - Correction of the decision concluding the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 354/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Squeeze Life, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Evolution Fresh, Inc. (San Bernardino, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2014 (Case R 595/2014-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Squeeze Life, SL and Evolution Fresh, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Squeeze Life, SL.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-488/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2016 by Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2016 in Case T-167/15, Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/24

         Appeal brought on 13 September 2016 by Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 July 2016 in Case T-167/15, Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

   (Case C-488/16 P)
   (2017/C 006/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Bundesverband Souvenir — Geschenke — Ehrenpreise e.V. (represented by: B. Bittner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Freistaat Bayern

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of 5 July 2016 in Case T-167/15;

               2.

               declare EU trade mark No 010144392 ‘Neuschwanstein’ invalid;

               3.

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal in Case T-167/15 infringes Articles 7(1)(c), 7(1)(b) and 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the following grounds:

               1.

               The General Court disregarded the fact that the designation ‘Neuschwanstein’ is an indication of geographical origin. It states in paragraph 27 of the judgment — in itself contradictorily — that Neuschwanstein Castle is admittedly ‘geographically locatable’ but is not a ‘geographical location’, because the principal function of the location is the preservation of cultural heritage and not the manufacturing or marketing of souvenirs or services. The ‘principal function’ of a geographical location does not, however, play any role in the absolute ground for refusal of the indication of geographical origin. Neuschwanstein Castle is clearly and immutably locatable and is, contrary to the General Court’s view, distinguishable from an ordinary museum that is determined by the exhibits displayed therein, which — unlike Neuschwanstein Castle — may also be relocated.
               The relevant public will not take up the analytical assessment, set out in the judgment under appeal, of the name as meaning ‘the new stone of the swan’, but will associate the fantasy name exclusively with the world-famous castle. Consequently, the judgment under appeal is also at variance with the requirements laid down by the Court of Justice in its Chiemsee judgment, (2) since the relevant public will associate goods bearing the designation ‘Neuschwanstein’ with Neuschwanstein Castle as a world renowned tourist centre. That location is therefore undoubtedly liable to have an impact on consumers’ choices and preferences by reason of its positive connotations. Thus, the sign, as an indication of geographical origin, lacks the capacity to be protected. There is a general interest in keeping the names of famous tourist sights, at least for typical souvenirs that are marketed and purchased in order to remind visitors of the sight concerned, free from monopolisation through trade-mark protection. An analysis of the goods and services in respect of which registration was sought in terms of their suitability as souvenirs was, however, not undertaken in the judgment under appeal. This was, however, necessary, in particular because registration of the mark at issue was sought for headings that also include typical souvenirs. The fact that in this case the Freistaat Bayern is the applicant in no way alters those principles, as the General Court stressed in its Monaco judgment, (3) since the same principles apply to a State qua applicant for registration of a trade mark as to other market participants.

               2.

               Contrary to the requirements of the previous case-law, the General Court came to the conclusion, with regard to the ground for refusal relating to the absence of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, that the relevant public would recognise that all goods bearing the designation ‘Neuschwanstein’ were manufactured, marketed or supplied under the control of the Freistaat Bayern (see, in this regard, paragraph 43 of the judgment under appeal). However, purchasers of goods that are traditionally offered in close proximity to a tourist sight and that bear its name will not see any reference in that designation to the owner of the sight and will not expect that they are manufactured or marketed by that owner. The designation ‘Neuschwanstein’ serves exclusively to remind them of their visit to the tourist sight and the point of sale. The relevant public is unconcerned as to who the manufacturer may be.

               3.

               Bad faith on the part of the applicant for the mark Neuschwanstein under Article 52(1)(b) must be assumed, since it was already well known to the relevant public and demonstrably also to the applicant before the application for registration of the EU trade mark at issue that a variety of goods are offered in the direct vicinity of Neuschwanstein Castle that are labelled with the name of that tourist sight.

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

      (2)  Judgment of 4 May 1999, Windsurfing Chiemsee (C-108/97 and C-109/97, EU:C:1999:230).

      (3)  Judgment of 15 January 2015, Marques de l’État de Monaco v OHIM (MONACO) (T-197/13, EU:T:2015:16).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 July 1995 in Case T-572/93, Odigitria AAE v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability P Omission of the Commission P Causal link P Applicant's fault P Duty to provide diplomatic protection)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            I EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 208/23
established in Athens, represented by Alastair Sutton and                 K. Stefanakis and Anastassia Chatzitzani, of the Athens Bar,
Daniel Bethlehem, Barristers, of the Bar of England and                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Wales , and by Aristotelis Kaplanidis, of the Thessaloniki                of Ekaterini Thill-Kamitaki , 17 Boulevard Royal v. Council
Bar, instructed by Victor Melas, of the Athens Bar, with an               of the European Union ( Agents : John Carbery and Sophia
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                 Kyriakopoulou ), and Commission of the European
Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe, v. Commission of the . European                      Communities ( Agent: Xenophon A. Yataganas ), application
Communities ( agents : Xenophon A. Yataganas, Michel                      for an award of damages pursuant to Article 178 and the
Nolin, Eric White and Daniel Calleja ), supported by                      second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, the Court
Hellenic Republic ( agents : Panagiotis Kamarineas,                       of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Cruz
Panagiotis Milonopoulos and Christina Sitara ) and                        Vilaça , President, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,
Heracles General Cement Company anonymos eteria ,                         Judges, Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, has
established at Likovrisi ( Greece ), represented by Kostas                given a judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it:
Loukopoulos and Sotiris Felios, of the Athens Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jos                  1 . dismisses the application ;
Stoffel, 21 Boulevard de Verdun , — application for the
annulment of the Decision of 1 August 1991 contained in                   2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Commission communication 92/C 1 /03 pursuant to
Article 93(2 ) of the EEC Treaty to other Member States and
interested parties concerning aid to Heracles General                     (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Cement Company in Greece, published in the Official
Journal ofthe European Communities of 4 January 1 992 ( 2 )
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, extended
composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,
and B. Vesterdorf, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
Kalogeropoulos , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it:                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 June 1995
1 . annuls the Decision of 1 August 1991 contained in
       Commission communication 92/C 1 /03 pursuant to                    in Case T-36/92 DEP: Syndicat français de l'Express
       Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty to other Member States            international ( SFEI ) and Others v. Commission of the
       and interested parties concerning aid to Heracles                                     European Communities (')
       General Cement Company in Greece, published in the                                  (Taxation of recoverable costs)
       Official Journal of the European Communities of                                               ( 95 /C 208/51 )
       4 January 1992 ;
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the                                (Language of the case: French)
       costs of the applicants apart from those caused by the
       interventions ;
                                                                          In Case T-36/92 DEP: Syndicat français de l'Express
3 . orders the interveners to bear their own costs and pay                international ( SFEI ), established at Roissy-Charles de
       the costs incurred by the applicants in the context of the         Gaulle ( France ), DHL International , established at
       interventions .                                                    Roissy-Charles de Gaulle ( France ), Service Crie, established
                                                                          at Paris ( France ) and May Courier, established at Paris
 (') OJ No C 121 , 13 . 5 . 1992 .                                         ( France ), represented by Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar,
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1992 , p . 4 .                                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                          of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume , v. Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and
                                                                          Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) — application for
                                                                          taxation of the recoverable costs pursuant to the order of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 composition ) of 3 October 1994 declaring that the case
                             of 6 July 1995                               should not proceed to judgment — the Court of First
in Case T-5 72/93 , Odigitria AAE v. Council of the                       Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli,
European Union and Commission of the European                              President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
                            Communities (')                                Registrar, made an order on 7 June 1995 , the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows :
  (Non-contractual liability — Omission of the Commission
 — Causal link — Applicant's fault — Duty to provide
                                                                           The total costs payable by the Commission to the applicants
                         diplomatic protection)                           are fixed in the sum of Bfrs 1 500 000, together with any
                              ( 95 /C 208/50 )                              VAT due on that sum .
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                           (') OJ No C 160 , 26 . 6 . 1992 .
 In Case T-572/93 , Odigitria AAE having its registered office
 in Athens, represented by Epameinondas Marias, Georgios


title: Case T-58/16: Action brought on 11 February 2016 — Apax Partners v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/36

         Action brought on 11 February 2016 — Apax Partners v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX)
   (Case T-58/16)
   (2016/C 111/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apax Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Curry and J. Warner, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘APAX’ — Application for registration No 3 538 981

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Case R 1441/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety and remit the application for the Contested Mark to EUIPO to allow it to proceed and;

               —

               order EUIPO and any party involved in these proceedings before the Board to bear their own costs and pay the Applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the Appeal before the Board and the Opposition B 764 029 before the Opposition Division.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-102/14 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2016 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Contracts in respect of EU financial support for projects in the research and development field — Audit report identifying irregularities — Decision to recover advances paid by the European Commission — Action for annulment — Decision to suspend payments — Action to establish non-contractual liability — Decision not to conclude a contract — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/5

      Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2016 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA v European Commission

      (Case C-102/14 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Contracts in respect of EU financial support for projects in the research and development field - Audit report identifying irregularities - Decision to recover advances paid by the European Commission - Action for annulment - Decision to suspend payments - Action to establish non-contractual liability - Decision not to conclude a contract - Action for damages - Inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/10)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, abogado)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas Andrés, avocat)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT SA shall pay the costs relating to the appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Joined Cases T-828/14 and T-829/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Antrax It v EUIPO — Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for radiators — Earlier designs — Plea of unlawfulness — Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principle of impartiality — Composition of the Board of Appeal — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Saturation of the state of the art — Date of assessment)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Antrax It v EUIPO — Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators)
   (Joined Cases T-828/14 and T-829/14) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier designs - Plea of unlawfulness - Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Principle of impartiality - Composition of the Board of Appeal - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Saturation of the state of the art - Date of assessment))
   (2017/C 095/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by M. P. Bullock, and subsequently by L. Rampini and S. Di Natale, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vasco Group NV, formerly Vasco Group BVBA (Dilsen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Haber, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2014 (Cases R 1272/2013-3 and R 1273/2013-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Vasco Group BVBA and Antrax It.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Antrax It Sarl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Vasco Group, including those incurred by Vasco Group NV for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in Cases R 1272/2013-3 and R 1273/2013-3.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case C-194/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on  26 April 2006  — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Orange European Smallcap Fund NV

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 26 April 2006 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Orange European Smallcap Fund NV
   (Case C-194/06)
   (2006/C 178/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Orange European Smallcap Fund NV
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Must Article 56 EC, in conjunction with Article 58(1) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition in Article 56 EC is incompatible with a rule in a Member State under which — for the reasons set out in at the end of section 5.2.1 of this judgment — a concession to be granted to a fiscal investment enterprise on account of taxation at source deducted in another Member State from dividends received by the fiscal investment enterprise is restricted:

                           (a)

                           to the amount which a natural person resident in the Netherlands could have had credited on the basis of a tax treaty concluded with the other Member State;

                           (b)

                           where and to the extent to which the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise are not natural persons resident in the Netherlands or bodies subject to Netherlands corporation tax?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is wholly or partly in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Does ‘direct investment’ in Article 57(1) EC also include the holding of a block of shares in a company if the holder of the shares holds them only as an investment and the size of the block does not put the holder in a position to exercise a decisive influence over the management or control of the company?

                           (b)

                           Under Article 56 EC, is any restriction of the movement of capital connected with the levying of tax that would be impermissible if it related to cross-border movement of capital within the EC similarly impermissible in the case of the same movement of capital — in otherwise similar circumstances — to and from third countries?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question 2(b) is in the negative, must Article 56 EC then be interpreted as meaning that a restriction by a Member State of a tax concession granted to a fiscal investment enterprise with regard to taxation at source of a dividend received from a third country, that restriction being based on the fact that not all shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise have their place of residence in the Member State concerned, is incompatible with that article?

               3.

               Is the answer to the above questions affected by whether:

                           (a)

                           the tax deducted in another country from the dividend received from that country is higher than the tax on the payment of that dividend to foreign shareholders in the Member State of establishment of the fiscal investment enterprise;

                           (b)

                           the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise who have their place of residence outside the Member State of establishment of the fiscal investment enterprise are resident or established in a country with which the above-mentioned Member State has a treaty providing for reciprocal credit of taxation of dividends at source;

                           (c)

                           the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise who have their place of residence outside the Member State of establishment of the fiscal investment enterprise are resident or established in another country of the EC?


title: Case C-506/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Kingdom of Sweden v MyTravel Group plc, European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(2), second indent, and Article 4(3), second subparagraph — Exceptions to the right of access concerning the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and the decision-making process — Control of concentrations — Commission documents drawn up in the context of a procedure which led to a decision declaring a concentration operation incompatible with the common market — Documents drafted following the annulment of that decision by the General Court)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Kingdom of Sweden v MyTravel Group plc, European Commission
   (Case C-506/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(2), second indent, and Article 4(3), second subparagraph - Exceptions to the right of access concerning the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and the decision-making process - Control of concentrations - Commission documents drawn up in the context of a procedure which led to a decision declaring a concentration operation incompatible with the common market - Documents drafted following the annulment of that decision by the General Court)
   2011/C 269/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska and A. Falk, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: MyTravel Group plc, European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, P. Costa de Oliveira and C. O’Reilly, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the Commission: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, Agents), French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-403/05 MyTravel v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance rejected an application for the annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 5 September 2005 and 12 October 2005 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain preparatory documents to the decision of 22 September 1999 declaring incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement the concentration seeking full control of First Choice plc by Airtours plc (Case No IV/M.1524 Airtours/First Choice), together with documents drawn up by the Commission’s services following the annulment of that decision by judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 9 September 2008 in Case T 403/05 MyTravel v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision D(2005) 8461 of 5 September 2005, dismissing the request by MyTravel Group plc for access to certain preparatory documents of the Commission on the control of concentrations inasmuch as it is based on the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

               3.

               Annuls Commission Decision D(2005) 9763 of 12 October 2005, partially dismissing the request by MyTravel Group plc for access to certain preparatory documents of the Commission on the control of concentrations inasmuch as it is based on the second indent of Article 4(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

               4.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the pleas in the action brought before it by MyTravel Group plc on which it did not give a ruling;

               5.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-301/13 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2013 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-571/11 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/34

         Appeal brought on 30 May 2013 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-571/11 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET)
   (Case C-301/13 P)
   2013/C 207/57
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 in Case T-571/11 in its entirety

               —

               Order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   1.   Breach of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations
   The principle of legal certainty requires ‘an unequivocal wording which gives the persons concerned a clear and precise understanding of their rights and obligations’. This principle is related to the principle of legitimate expectations, emphasising the need for administrative decisions to set out the reasons on which they are based when they diverge from earlier decisions that may give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of their addressees.
   The way in which Spanish ‘slogan marks’ (registered during the period of validity of the 1997 Guidelines) have been applied by Spanish courts is in clear conflict with the Community administrative measures in opposition proceedings B 877 714 and with the judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 in Case T-571/11: as the Opposition Division had doubts about the wording relating to the earlier mark, it should have remedied this by asking the Spanish Patent and Trade Mark Office for clarification on this point or indeed required the appellant to provide submissions in its defence.
   2.   Manifest error of assessment of the background to the dispute
   The appellant claims that the judgment regards it as being established that the opposing mark is registered in respect of Class 35, protecting services of an advertising sentence used as a slogan for the marketing, use or exploitation of products in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 42; and that OHIM was aware of its own decision of 17 July 2006, in which it took into account the Guidelines for examination of slogan marks of the Spanish Patent and Trade Mark Office of 11 November 1997 (Annex 4), and the judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court of 25 February 2004 and 30 May 2008.
   The appellant claims that requiring a party to plead and prove that the protection of its earlier mark extended to the same goods as those covered by the application constitutes a manifest error of assessment since it amounts to requiring identity in application. As a result, the incorrect assessment of the evidence and facts has left the main question unresolved: Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009. (1)

   3.   Failure to state reasons in the judgment under appeal
   Having recognised (paragraph 3[9]) the importance of the judgment in Case T-318/03 Atomic Austria v OHIM — Fábricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil (ATOMIC BLITZ), (2) the judgment under appeal states (paragraph 41) that that judgment is applicable where OHIM already has information relating to national law, which, in the appellant’s submission, is a contradiction because it would then not be applicable of OHIM’s own motion.
   It is stated in paragraph 45 that arguments raised in other proceedings before OHIM cannot be argued before OHIM; the appellant submits that no reasoning is given as to why this should be the case.
   The failure to carry out any comparative analysis of the marks, the true cause of action (paragraph 55 of the judgment), is unfair as it deprives the appellant of the possibility of defending itself.
   4.   Likelihood of confusion
   The General Court infringed the appellant’s rights of defence by failing to rule on the likelihood of confusion as provided for in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. Amongst the pleas set out in the application, paragraphs 19 to 22, the main plea is the incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion. By virtue of the case-law, the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances.

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

      (2)  [2005] ECR II-1319.


title: Case C-38/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Social policy  — Directive 1999/70/EC  — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP  — Clause 4  — Concept of ‘employment conditions’   — Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract  — Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Poland) — Małgorzata Nierodzik v Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy
   (Case C-38/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Notice period for the termination of a fixedterm employment contract - Difference in treatment between workers on contracts of indefinite duration))
   2014/C 135/13
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Małgorzata Nierodzik

      Defendant: Samodzielny Publiczny Psychiatryczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej im. dr. Stanisława Deresza w Choroszczy

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), and of clauses 1 and 4 of the annex to that directive — Provisions of national law providing for less favourable periods of notice in fixed-term contracts than in open-ended contracts.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, for the termination of fixed-term contracts of more than six months, a fixed notice period of two weeks may be applied regardless of the length of service of the worker concerned, whereas the length of the notice period for contracts of indefinite duration is fixed in accordance with the length of service of the worker concerned and may vary from two weeks to three months, where those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-460/10 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2010 in Case T-401/09 Marcuccio v Court of Justice

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/16

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2010 in Case T-401/09 Marcuccio v Court of Justice
   (Case C-460/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 328/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety and without exception the order of 6 July 2010 of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) in Case T-401/09 Marcuccio v Court of Justice.

               —

               declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without exception;

               —

               allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought at first instance and order the defendant at first instance to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to all proceedings, including the present appeal proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the court at first instance, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The order under appeal is unlawful, on the following grounds, inter alia: (a) incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the principle of law relating to Aquilian liability and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law of the European Union; (b) total failure to state reasons, manifest error of assessment, distortion of facts, incomplete and incorrect assessment of the evidence adduced by the appellant, infringement of the the obligation of clare loqui and irrelevant, self-evident, arbitrary, illogical, irrational and unreasonable reasoning; (c) failure to rule on fundamental aspects of the case and total absence of preliminary enquiries; (d) failure to comply with the duty on the part of the court to base its rulings, including in relation to its assessment of the evidence, on the concepts of common knowledge, experience and feeling; (e) incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the burden of proof.


title: Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others

text:
C 299/28              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16.10.1999
3. In evaluating those eligible for promotion, the Promotions            Diekmeier and Others v Council of the European Union and
    Committee did not follow the criteria laid down in the               Commission of the European Communities.
    promotion guidelines, but relied on other criteria. Those
    criteria also contravened the recommendations formulated
                                                                         (1) OJ C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 159 of 24.6.1995.
    by the Directorate-General to which the applicant belongs.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93                        Removal from the register of Case T-2/98 (1)
                         and Others (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/42)
                        (1999/C 299/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                  (Language of the cases: German)
                                                                         By order of 1 February 1999 the President of the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber,
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         Case T-2/98: Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v Commission of the
European Communities has ordered the removal of Case
T-252/94 from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-85/93 and              European Communities.
Others: Helmut Bösl v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                  (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-168/98 (1)
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94                                       (1999/C 299/43)
                         and Others (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (1999/C 299/41)
                                                                         By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the First
                  (Language of the cases: German)                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-168/98: Anastasios Bisopoulos v Commission of the
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         European Communities.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal of Cases T-16/95 and T-100/95 from
the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.


title: Case T-70/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-104/13 De Nicola v EIB

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/41

         Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-104/13 De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-70/16 P)
   (2016/C 111/50)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 13 to 17, 57 to 60 and 62 to 68 of the judgment itself;

               —

               Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-104/13).
   In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, relating to the contractual nature of the relationship between the appellant and the EIB.

                           —

                           In that regard, the appellant argues that he sought compensation for damage in respect of the contractual liability of the EIB, and not the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, relating to the request for a declaration of bullying.

                           —

                           In that regard, the appellant argues, in particular, that the Civil Service Tribunal could not evade its duty to investigate an accusation of bullying, and, therefore, that it entirely unlawfully declared that the head of claim seeking a declaration that that bullying had taken place was inadmissible. The verification and legal characterisation of the facts is, inter alia, an essential ‘precondition’ in order subsequently to determine the compensation for the alleged damage.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, relating to the request that the EIB be ordered to pay compensation for the damage from bullying.

                           —

                           In that regard, the appellant argues that the conditions are satisfied in the present case for the Court to examine the information and recognise the right to compensation for the damage suffered.


title: Case T-86/06: Action brought on  16 March 2006  — Studio Bichara e.a. v Commission

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/14

         Action brought on 16 March 2006 — Studio Bichara e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-86/06)
   (2006/C 121/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Studio Bichara SrL, Riccardo Bichara and Maria Proietti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Pappalardo and M.C. Santacroce, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Hold the Commission Delegation in Papua New Guinea liable for non-contractual damages and OLAF liable for non-contractual damages in connection with Project No 8.ACP.PNG.003;

               —

               order the Commission and OLAF to pay compensation for damage suffered as a result of unlawful conduct in the execution of Project No 8.ACP.PNG.003 provisionally assessed at Euro 5 884 873,99;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action concerns a claim for compensation for damage suffered by the applicant company, an Italian engineering consultancy which operated for a number of years in the context of EU funded programmes, as a result of the conduct of officials of the Commission Delegation in Papua New Guinea and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in relation to contract for services No 8.ACP.PNG.003, which was supported by the European Development Fund.
   It should be noted in this regard that in December 1999 the applicant company was awarded the contract in question to design improvement works for nine education establishments in a number of regions in Papua New Guinea.
   The applicant company considers, together with two other applicants, that the Community has incurred non-contractual liability in this case as a consequence of:

               —

               improper interference by the Commission Delegation in Papua New Guinea in the contractual relationship between Studio Bichara and the local Government with regard to the contract for services at issue. That interference obliged the applicant company to terminate the contract prematurely and made it impossible for there to be any amicable solution to the dispute between the contracting parties.

               —

               the conduct on the part of OLAF in the course of investigations OF/2002/0261 and OF/2002/0322. That conduct is to be regarded as inconsistent both with OLAF's duty to carry out its investigations in complete independence, even in its dealings with the European Commission, and the principles of justice, impartiality and the presumption of innocence of those under investigation.


title: Case C-177/02, C-178/02, C-179/02 e C-180/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessandro & Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda agricola Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA; and 4) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against Battista e Giacomo Malzani

text:
C 156/12                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
—     Incorrect legal assessment of the letter of the director of      the pension of 5 % for each year by which the pension is taken
      the merger control directorate of 7 November 2001                in advance?
      The interpretation of the Court of First Instance that the
      letter of 7 November 2001 is to be imputed to the                (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
      Commission as a contestable act, since in contrast to the            progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
      two previous letters there is no mention in it of the                for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6 of
      Commission not being bound, appears arbitrary and                    10.1.1979, p. 24).
      contrary to the principle of good faith and hence in
      breach of general principles of Community law.
      With a correct legal assessment, the Court of First Instance
      should have concluded that the letter of the merger              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
      control directorate of 7 November 2001 was not imput-            di Cassazione by order of that Court of 17 January 2002
      able to the Commission, so that there was a continuing           in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura
      failure to act by the Commission.                                — AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessandro &
                                                                       Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricol-
                                                                       tura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda agricola
                                                                       Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against Agen-
                                                                       zia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA; and 4) Agen-
(1) Not yet reported in the ECR.                                       zia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against
                                                                                Battista e Giacomo Malzani
                                                                             (Case C-177/02, C-178/02, C-179/02 e C-180/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/22)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the la Corte Suprema di
                                                                       Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 17 January 2002,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Cour de              received at the Court Registry on 13 May 2002, for a
Cassation by judgment of that Court of 29 April 2002 in                preliminary ruling in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni
the case of Robert Bourgard against Institut National                  in agricoltura — AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessan-
   d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants                dro & Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni in
                                                                       agricoltura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda
                                                                       agricola Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against
                          (Case C-172/02)                              Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA; and
                                                                       4) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against
                                                                       Battista e Giacomo Malzani on the following question:
                          (2002/C 156/21)
                                                                       Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
                                                                       1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of
                                                                       28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                       additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
European Communities by judgment of the Belgian Cour de
                                                                       liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
Cassation (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2002, received at the
                                                                       exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
Court Registry on 10 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Robert Bourgard against Institut National
d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants on the
following question:                                                    (1) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
Does Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) of the Council of
19 December 1978 authorise a Member State which has set
the pensionable age of male self-employed workers at 65 and
that of female self-employed workers at 60, with the result
that the old-age pension of male workers is calculated on the
basis of an insurance record expressed as a fraction with a
denominator of 45, whilst the denominator is 40 for female
workers, to impose on male workers, who alone have the right
to rquest early payment of the old-age pension in the five years
prior to normal retirement age, a reduction in the amount of


title: Case C-254/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici, Croatia) — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Price to the consumer — Whether fixed costs can be invoiced — Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/14

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici, Croatia) — VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju v Đuro Vladika
      (Case C-254/14) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community action in the field of water policy - Directive 2000/60/EC - Price to the consumer - Whether fixed costs can be invoiced - Facts preceding the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
      (2015/C 016/20)
      Language of the case: Croatian

         Referring court

      Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: VG Vodoopskrba d.o.o. za vodoopskrbu i odvodnju

         Defendant: Đuro Vladika

         Operative part of the order

      The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the (Croatia).

         (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-447/17: Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Bowles v ECB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/27

         Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Bowles v ECB
   (Case T-447/17)
   (2017/C 347/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Consequently,

                           —

                           Annul the decision of 31 January 2017 communicated to the staff on 1 February 2017 to appoint Mr [X] Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board, annul the decision not to appoint the applicant to that post and annul the decision not to have permitted the applicant to apply for that post;

                           —

                           Annul the decision rejecting the special appeal dated 16 May 2017 received on 23 May 2017;

                           —

                           Order the payment of compensation for the applicant’s material loss consisting of the loss of an opportunity to be appointed to the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board;

                           —

                           Order the payment of compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary loss assessed ex aequo et bono at a symbolic EUR 1;

                           —

                           Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of publicity, transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 20.2 of the Rules of Procedure, 8(a) of the Conditions of Employment and 1a.1.1 of the Staff Rules and of Articles 2 TEU and 3 TEU and 20 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that regard, the application is of the view that he did not have the opportunity of submitting his application for the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board while Mr [X] did have that opportunity.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1a.7 of the Staff Rules, in that such a legal basis allows only the appointment of a candidate to a post of Counsel to the Executive Board and not that of a candidate to the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board which adds the corresponding responsibilities which equate to a level higher than that of a Counsel.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to consult the Staff Committee on the creation of a new post and on the modification of the post of Coordinator, which was done in breach of Articles 48 and 49 of the Conditions of Employment and the Protocol of Agreement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration as a result of the lack of a job description for the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2004 in Case T-394/03 R: Flavia Angeletti v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/43

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 February 2004
   in Case T-394/03 R: Flavia Angeletti v Commission of the European Communities
   (Procedure for interim relief - Urgency - None)
   (2004/C 94/123)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-394/03 R: Flavia Angeletti, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J.R. Iturriagogoitia and K. Devolvé, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Kraemer) — application for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of 17 October 2003, as corrected on 27 October 2003 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 10 February 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-584/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Real Madrid Football Club, Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham, Raul Gonzalez Blanco, Ronaldo Luiz Nazario de Lima, Luis Filipe Madeira Caeiro, Futebol Club Do Porto S.A.D., Victor Baia, Ricardo Costa, Diego Ribas da Cunha, P.S.V. N.V., Imari BV, Juventus Football Club SPA v Sporting Exchange Ltd, William Hill Credit Limited, Victor Chandler (International) Ltd, BWIN International Ltd (Betandwin), Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd, Ladbroke Belgium S.A., Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd, Global Entertainment Ltd (Unibet)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Real Madrid Football Club, Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham, Raul Gonzalez Blanco, Ronaldo Luiz Nazario de Lima, Luis Filipe Madeira Caeiro, Futebol Club Do Porto S.A.D., Victor Baia, Ricardo Costa, Diego Ribas da Cunha, P.S.V. N.V., Imari BV, Juventus Football Club SPA v Sporting Exchange Ltd, William Hill Credit Limited, Victor Chandler (International) Ltd, BWIN International Ltd (Betandwin), Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd, Ladbroke Belgium S.A., Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd, Global Entertainment Ltd (Unibet)
   (Case C-584/08)
   (2009/C 55/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Real Madrid Football Club, Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham, Raul Gonzalez Blanco, Ronaldo Luiz Nazario de Lima, Luis Filipe Madeira Caeiro, Futebol Club Do Porto S.A.D., Victor Baia, Ricardo Costa, Diego Ribas da Cunha, P.S.V. N.V., Imari BV, Juventus Football Club SPA

      Respondents: Sporting Exchange Ltd, William Hill Credit Limited, Victor Chandler (International) Ltd, BWIN International Ltd (Betandwin), Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd, Ladbroke Belgium S.A., Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd, Global Entertainment Ltd (Unibet)
   Questions referred
   The questions relate to the interpretation to be given, in the specific field of the internet, to Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1).
   Where, as in the present case, the alleged harm is caused by websites and

               (a)

               none of the companies being sued, which run the websites in question, has its company seat in Belgium,

               (b)

               none of the websites in question is hosted in Belgium,

               (c)

               none of the claimants is domiciled in Belgium,

               (d)

               the betting websites are available to Belgian internet users, who can place their bets on those sites, to the same extent as they are available to internet users in other contracting States since they are ‘.com’ websites which have the purpose of extending their market to the whole of Europe, and they do not have the extension ‘.be’ which is specific to Belgium,

               (e)

               those websites are available in a number of languages without the two most commonly used languages in Belgium always being among them,

               (f)

               those websites offer, inter alia, bets on Belgian matches, in the same way as for foreign championships,

               (g)

               the use of a particular technology or canvassing technique aimed at the Belgian public has not been proved,

               (h)

               the number of bets placed by the Belgian public is entirely marginal in comparison with the total number of bets taken by those sites, since, according to the figures submitted by the bookmaking companies for 2005, which were not disputed, all the Belgian betting on football matches represents less than 0.25 % of the bets taken on the websites ‘bwin.com’, ‘willhill.com’, ‘betfair.com’, ‘ladbrokes.com’, ‘sportingbet’, and ‘miapuesta’, while ‘vcbet.com’ refers to 40 Belgian bettors among all the bets placed with it,

                           1.

                           should it be held that the alleged harm occurred or is liable to occur in Belgium, so that the Belgian courts have jurisdiction to hear the actions relating to that harm because the websites in question are directed, inter alia, at the Belgian public?

                           2.

                           or should it be held that the alleged harm occurred or is liable to occur in Belgium, so that Belgian courts have jurisdiction to hear the actions relating to that harm, only if the existence of a sufficient, substantial or meaningful connection between the tortious events pleaded and Belgian territory is established?

                           3.

                           if so, what are the relevant criteria to be taken into consideration in assessing whether such a connecting factor exists?

      (1)  OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 1997 in Joined Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 (references for preliminary rulings from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen): Fritz Stöber (C-4/95) and José Manuel Piosa Pereira (C-5/95) v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Persons covered)

text:
8 . 3 . 97            ran                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/9
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 30 January 1997                                                   of 30 January 1997
in Joined Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 (references for                      in Case C-139/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
preliminary rulings from the Landessozialgericht Nord                 the Pretura Circondariale di Genova ): Livia Balestra v.
rhein-Westfalen): Fritz Stober ( C-4/95 ) and Jose Manuel                   Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS ) ( ] )
     Piosa Pereira ( C-5/95 ) v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (')
                                                                       (Directives 76/207/EEC and 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment
(Social security — Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                 for men       and    women     —   Calculation   of credit for
                         — Persons covered)                                         supplemental retirement contributions)
                             ( 97/C 74/15 )                                                       ( 97/C 74/16 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 : two references to the
                                                                       In Case C- 13 9/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine                  of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Geno
Westphalia Higher Social Court) ( Germany ) for a                      va ( District Magistrate's Court, Genoa ) ( Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                       court between Livia Balestra and Istituto Nazionale della
court between Fritz Stober ( C-4/95 ) and Jose Manuel
Piosa Pereira ( C-5/95 ) and Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit — on             Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) — on the interpretation of
the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/               Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
 71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security               implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
 schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons                  men and women as regards access to employment,
 and to members of their families moving within the                     vocational training and promotion, and working
 Community, as amended and updated by Council                           conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976, p. 40 ) and of
                                                                        Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
 Regulation ( EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ No
 L 230, 22. 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), as amended by Council                    progresssive implementation of the principle of equal
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989 ( OJ                  treatment for men and women in matters of social security
 No L 331 , 16 . 11 . 1989, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth                  ( OJ No L 6, 10 . 1 . 1979, p. 24 ) — the Court ( Fifth
 Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                       Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the First
 ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                   Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
 D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; A.              D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M.
 La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                   Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate
 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
 30 January 1997, in which it has ruled:                                given a judgment on 30 January 1997, in which it has
                                                                        ruled as follows :
 For the purposes of the payment of family benefits under
 German legislation, Article 73 of Council Regulation                    Where, pursuant to Article 7 (1 ) (a) of Council Directive
 (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                  79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
 social security schemes to employed persons, to self                  implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
 employed persons and to members of their families                      men and women in matters of social security, a Member
 moving within the Community, as amended and updated                    State has set pensionable ages which differ according to
 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983,                sex, that provision also allows it to provide that
 as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of                    employees of an undertaking declared to be in critical
 30 October 1989, must be interpreted as covering only                   difficulty may be credited with a maximum of five years '
 self-employed persons complying with the definition                    supplemental retirement contributions starting from their
 provided by the combined provisions of Article 1 (a) (ii)               entry into early retirement until the date on which they
 and point I (C) (b) of Annex I of that Regulation.                      reach the age at which they are entitled to a retirement
 However, national rules which cause the taking of a self               pension, that is to say 55 years in the case of women and
 employed person 's children into account when calculating               60 years in the case of men, since the difference relating to
 family allowances to be dependent upon their residing in                sex in the method of calculating early-retirement benefits
  that Member State are contrary to Article 52 of the EC                 is objectively and necessarily linked to the setting of
  Treaty.                                                                pensionable ages which differ for men and women.
  (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         C ) OJ No C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .


title: Case T-434/07: Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/25

         Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)
   (Case T-434/07)
   (2008/C 37/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elena Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russia)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2007 in Case No R 1240/2006-2; and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Elena Grebenshikova

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39 and 42 — application No 3 555 422

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word and figurative mark ‘VOLVO’ for, inter alia, goods and services in classes 9 and 42

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the trade marks in question are visually and phonetically similar and as the Board of Appeal did not take all relevant factors, including the identity of the goods concerned and the reputation of VOLVO, into account.