title: Case C-316/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell (Community trade mark — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Infringement or threatened infringement — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts — Definition of special reasons for not issuing such a prohibition — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell
   (Case C-316/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Infringement or threatened infringement - Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts - Definition of ‘special reasons’ for not issuing such a prohibition - Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with - National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties)
   (2006/C 331/24)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta Domstolen (Sweden)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nokia Corp.

      Defendant: Joacim Wärdell
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta Domstolen — Interpretation of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Obligation of a Community trade mark court which finds that the defendant has infringed or threatens to infringe a Community trade mark, to issue, save where there are specific reasons for not doing so, an order prohibiting him from further infringements or threats to infringe — National legislation already containing a general prohibition of infringement and providing for penalties in the case of further such acts
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that the risk of further infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is not obvious or is otherwise merely limited does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts.

               2.

               Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the national law includes a general prohibition of the infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence, does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts.

               3.

               Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take such measures, in accordance with its national law, as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if the national law includes a general prohibition of infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence.

               4.

               Article 98(1) of Regulation 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take, from among the measures provided for under national law, such as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if those measures could not, under that law, be taken in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case C-554/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Le Carbone-Lorraine SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Setting the amount of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Principle of the individual nature of penalties — Equal treatment — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Le Carbone-Lorraine SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-554/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Setting the amount of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Principle of the individual nature of penalties - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)
   2010/C 11/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Le Carbone-Lorraine SA (represented by: A. Winckler and H. Kanellopoulos, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 in Case T-73/04 Carbone-Lorraine v Commission, in which the Court dismissed the application brought by the appellant for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products, and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Breach of the principle of the individual nature of penalties — Method for setting the amount of the fine imposed — Constant and close cooperation during the administrative procedure — Principles of proportionality and of equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Le Carbone-Lorraine SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 21.02.2009


5.7.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-395/01 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-426/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/36)                                                        (2003/C 158/38)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 27 March 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
from the register of Case C-395/01 (Reference for a preliminary        the removal from the register of Case C-426/01 (Reference for
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’Instance, Vienne): SA
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-417/01 ( 1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-432/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/37)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/39)
By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-417/01 (Reference for a preliminary        By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        from the register of Case C-432/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
                                                                       Vorarlberg): Helmut Gunz.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


title: Case C-448/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 September 2014  — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 September 2014 — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg
   (Case C-448/14)
   (2014/C 448/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Davitas GmbH

      Respondent: Stadt Aschaffenburg

      Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

      Questions referred

   Is the product ‘De Tox Forte’ which is marketed by the appellant a food or a food ingredient with a new molecular structure within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (1)?
   In particular, does it suffice, in order to be able to answer this question in the affirmative, that that product, which contains the substance clinoptilolite in its particular primary molecular structure, was not yet being used as a food prior to 15 May 1997, or does that product, in addition, have to be produced via the production process by means of a procedure which results in a new or intentionally modified molecular structure, which means that it must be a substance which did not previously exist naturally in that form?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1).


title: Case C-316/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22 July 2004 in the case of Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie against College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Ctb)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22 July 2004 in the case of Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie against College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Ctb)
   (Case C-316/04)
   (2004/C 239/06)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven of 22 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie against College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Ctb) on the following questions:

               1(a)

               Can Article 8 of the Plant Protection Products Directive (1) be applied by the national court after the period referred to in Article 23 thereof has expired?

               1(b)

               Can Article 16 of the Biocidal Products Directive (2) be applied by a national court after the period referred to in Article 34 thereof has expired?

               2.

               Must Article 16 of the Biocidal Product Directive be interpreted as having the same meaning as Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive?

               3.

               Must Article 16(1) of the Biocidal Products Directive be interpreted as a standstill obligation?
               If the answer to this question is in the negative:
               Does Article 16(1) of the Biocidal Products Directive impose limits on amendments to national rules concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products, and if so what limits?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:

                           (a)

                           Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that where a Member State authorises the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of that directive regard must also be had to the provisions of Article 4 thereof?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive also be interpreted as meaning that where a Member State authorises the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of that directive regard must also be had to the provisions of Article 8(3) thereof?

               5.

               Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that 'a review' must also be construed as including an examination whereby regard is to be had to the effects of an active substance concerned on human and animal health and on the environment and on the basis of which this active substance is designated, the result of such designation being that plant protection products containing the active substance are authorised or registered by operation of law?

               6.

               Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that it contains only rules relating to the provision of data before a review or must it be construed as meaning that the requirements set out therein are also relevant to the way in which a review must be organised and carried out?

      (1)   OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

      (2)   OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.


title: Case T-66/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014  — Sedghi and Azizi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sedghi and Azizi v Council
   (Case T-66/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal from the list of persons and entities concerned - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))
   2014/C 235/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ali Sedghi (Tehran, Iran) and Ahmad Azizi (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and M. Lester, Barrister, subsequently by S. Ashley, D. Wyatt, M. Lester, A. Irvine and S. Jeffrey, Solicitors, and finally by S. Ashley, D. Wyatt, M. Lester, A. Irvine and S. Millar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bishop, I. Rodios and B. Driessen, and subsequently by M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, principally, for annulment, with immediate effect, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicants, and, in the alternative, for a declaration that Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 do not apply to Mr Azizi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following, in so far as they concern Mr Ali Sedghi and Mr Ahmad Azizi:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-137/13: Action brought on 7 March 2013 — Saferoad RRS v OHIM (MEGARAIL)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/27

         Action brought on 7 March 2013 — Saferoad RRS v OHIM (MEGARAIL)
   (Case T-137/13)
   2013/C 129/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Saferoad RRS GmbH (Weroth, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2013 in Case R 2536/2011-4 and the Examiner’s decision of 23 November 2011 in so far as the mark was rejected;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MEGARAIL’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 19 and 37

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case C-70/08: Action brought on 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/9

         Action brought on 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-70/08)
   (2008/C 116/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Enegren, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (1), or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, or, in any case, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2003/72/EC expired on 18 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 July 1997 in Case T-212/95: Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (Oficemen) v. Commission of the European Communities (Anti-dumping - Commission proposal to close an anti-dumping proceeding without imposing protective measures - Rejection by the Council - Action for annulment - Action for failure to act)

text:
 No C 252/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 8 . 97
 Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: B.
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson              Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. European Parliament ( Agents:            J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
 Manfred Peter, Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic )              for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 1997,
 — application for annulment of the decision of the                    in which it :
 European Parliament of 22 August 1995 appointing the
 applicant to a post as clerical assistant, in so far as that
 appointment was in grade C 5 — the Court of First                      1 . dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;
 Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
 President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges, A. Mair,
 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             2 . declares that it is unnecessary to proceed to judgment
 9 July 1997, in which it:                                                  on the claim alleging failure to act;
 1 . annuls the Parliament 's decision of 22 August 1995 in
                                                                       3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs, to pay
      so far as it concerns the classification of the applicant             half of the costs incurred by the applicant in
                                                                            connection with the claim for annulment and the
      in grade;
                                                                            whole of the costs incurred by the applicant in
                                                                            connection with the claim alleging failure to act;
 2 . orders the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                       4 . orders the applicant to bear half of the costs which it
 (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .                                          incurred in connection with the claim for annulment;
                                                                       5 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                                                                       (•) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 10 July 1997
in Case T-212/95 : Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento
de España (Oficemen) v. Commission of the European
                           Communities (M                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 (Anti-dumping — Commission proposal to close an anti                                          of 10 July 1997
dumping proceeding without imposing protective measures               in Case T-227/95 : AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and
— Rejection by the Council — Action for annulment —
                    Action for failure to act)                            Others v. Commission of the European Communities (')
                            ( 97/C 252/61 )
                                                                       (Competition — Consequences of partial annulment by
                                                                       the Court of Justice of a decision relating to a proceeding
                                                                       under Article 85 of the Treaty — Effects of the judgment
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                        on persons to whom the decision was addressed who did
                                                                      not bring an action for annulment — Article 176 of the
                                                                             Treaty — Request for partial refund of fines paid)
In Case T-2 12/95 : Asociacion de Fabricantes de Cemento
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/62 )
de Espana ( Oficemen ), established in Madrid, represented
by Jaime Folguera Crespo and Edurne Navarro Varona, of
the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in                                     (Language of the case: English)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, supported by the Kingdom of Spain ( Agents:
initially Gloria Calvo Diaz, subsequently Luis Perez De               In Case T-227/95 : AssiDomän Kraft Products AB, whose
Ayala Becerril ), against Commission of the European                  registered office is in Stockholm, AB Iggesunds Bruk,
Communities (Agents : initially Nicholas Kahn and                     whose registered office is in Ornsköldsvik, Sweden,
Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz, subsequently Nicholas                Korsnäs AB, whose registered office is in Gävle, Sweden,
Kahn and Fernando Castillo De la Torre ) — application,               MoDo Paper AB, whose registered office is in
on the one hand, for annulment of the Commission's                    Ornsköldsvik, Sweden, Södra Cell AB, whose registered
decision to terminate de facto in February 1994 the anti             office is in Växjö, Sweden, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
dumping proceeding initiated in April 1992 at the request             AB, whose registered office is in Falun, Sweden, Svenska
of Oficemen, thereby refusing the protective measures                 Cellulosa AB, whose registered office is in Sundsvall,
requested by that association, and, on the other hand, for            Sweden, represented by John E. Pheasant, solicitor of the
a declaration that, by formally maintaining the said anti            Supreme Court of England and Wales, and Christopohe
dumping procedure open without adopting measures                      Raux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
enabling it formally to be terminated, possibly through the           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
imposition of protective measures, the Commission has                 Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third                    Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ) — application for


title: Case C-284/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Simone Künnecke and Others v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Simone Künnecke and Others v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-284/17)
   (2017/C 283/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Simone Künnecke, Thomas Küther, Antonia Künnecke, Moritz Künnecke

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: Is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-218/99: Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 226/24                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.8.1999
     products involved a notification number provided for by             2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
     Article 4 thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 ff. (ex Article 30) of
     the EC Treaty;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         The third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty is binding
                                                                         and therefore requires the Member States to comply with the
                                                                         time-limits laid down in directives. The prescribed period laid
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          down in the first paragraph of Article 15 of the directive ended
                                                                         on 1 January 1997 without the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                         having adopted the necessary measures.
Despite the fact that the legislation applies to both national
and foreign products equally, the obligation to indicate the
notification number attributed by the Belgian authorities                (1) OJ L 213 of 7.9.1995, p. 1.
could have restrictive effects on trace, since it makes special
packaging or labelling necessary when contemplating distri-
bution in Belgium. Since it is merely the result of a desire to
facilitate monitoring measures and to make it easy to check
whether a product has been previously notified, it cannot be
justified by public health considerations, since less burdensome
measures could easily be devised. The Belgian authorities are
wrong to cite examples of Community provisions providing
for marking (veterinary sector, milk products, toys, aerosol
sprays and medicinal products) which permit the free move-               Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the
ment of the product while indicating its compliance with                     European Communities against the French Republic
binding legislation, when the obligation which is the subject-
matter of the present action serves to lighten controls after
prior notification is given.                                                                        (Case C-219/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/41)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June 1999
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos
Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                            Luxembourg
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
                          (Case C-218/99)
                                                                         1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                          (1999/C 226/40)                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of
                                                                              29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                           Member States relating to lifts (1), the French Republic has
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
ties on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser,             2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
                                                                         Case C-218/99 (2).
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         (1) OJ L 213 of 7.9.1995, p. 1.
     European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of               (2) See p. 24 of this Official Journal.
     29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the
     Member States relating to lifts (1), the Grand Duchy of
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;


title: Case T-485/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets for heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Infringement committed by a jointly-held subsidiary — Fines — Joint and several liability of the subsidiary and the parent companies — Ten-year limitation period applicable to one of the parent companies — Decision readopted — Reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on one of the parent companies — Attribution to the subsidiary and the other parent company of the obligation to pay the reduced fine — Rights of the defence)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission
   (Case T-485/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets for heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Infringement committed by a jointly-held subsidiary - Fines - Joint and several liability of the subsidiary and the parent companies - Ten-year limitation period applicable to one of the parent companies - Decision readopted - Reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on one of the parent companies - Attribution to the subsidiary and the other parent company of the obligation to pay the reduced fine - Rights of the defence))
   (2015/C 302/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented by C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, and subsequently by Mr Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 30 June 2011 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in so far as it was addressed to Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the amount of the fines imposed.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission Decision of 30 June 2011 amending Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-491/10: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — SNCF v OHIM — Infotrafic (infotrafic)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/49

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — SNCF v OHIM — Infotrafic (infotrafic)
   (Case T-491/10) (1)

   2011/C 282/91
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-399/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — ArcelorMittal España v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/53

         Action brought on 14 September 2010 — ArcelorMittal España v Commission
   (Case T-399/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ArcelorMittal España, SA (Gozón, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision insofar as they relate to ArcelorMittal España, S.A.;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the fine imposed on ArcelorMittal España, S.A.;

               —

               and, as a further alternative, decrease the amount of the fine imposed on ArcelorMittal España, S.A.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Article 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector at the pan-European and/or national/regional levels. Furthermore, it seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 6 pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the Commission has violated the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal provided for in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights insofar as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.
   Second, it submits that the Commission has committed the errors in the calculation of the fine, which led to a larger fine being imposed on the applicant.
   Third, it contends that the Commission has erroneously found that the applicant exercised decisive influence on Emesa and Galycas’ prior to December 1997.
   Fourth, it argues that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicant a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice (1), although it provided decisive evidence on the duration and gravity of the infringement and thus, fulfilled the requirements stated therein.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has incorrectly applied the ‘specific increase for deterrence’ provided for in paragraph point 30 of the Commission 2006 Fining Guidelines (2), resulting in an illegal 20 % increase of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2


title: Case T-390/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Établissement Amra v OHIM (KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR) (Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark KJ Kangoo Jumps XR — Absolute ground for refusal — Devoid of any distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Établissement Amra v OHIM (KJ KANGOO JUMPS XR)
   (Case T-390/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark KJ Kangoo Jumps XR - Absolute ground for refusal - Devoid of any distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 March 2014 (Case R 1511/2013-2), concerning an application for registration of the ‘3D position mark’ KJ Kangoo Jumps XR as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Établissement Amra to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2001 in Case C-404/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable amount — Exclusion — Service charges)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 200/5
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                          (Second Chamber)
                           of 29 March 2001                                                            of 5 April 2001
in Case C-404/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       in Case C-201/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       ties v French Republic (1)                           the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Deutsche Nichimen GmbH
                                                                                v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
VAT Directive — Taxable amount — Exclusion — Service                        (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifi-
                                 charges)                                   cation in the Combined Nomenclature — Satellite television
                                                                                receivers)
                            (2001/C 200/07)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/08)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-404/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: E. Traversa, assisted by N. Coutrelis) v French Republic            In Case C-201/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a               EC from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Düsseldorf (Ger-
declaration that, by authorising, under certain conditions, the             many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
exclusion from the taxable amount for the purposes of value                 before that court between Deutsche Nichimen GmbH and
added tax of the ‘service charges’ claimed by certain taxable               Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf — on the interpretation of the
persons, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff as
under Articles 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive            set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                      the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  amended by the Annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC)
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                     No 2886/89 of 2 August 1989 (OJ 1989 L 252, p. 1),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and                        (OJ 1990 L 247, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EEC)
L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                  No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 250, p. 1) — the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President
on 29 March 2001, in which it:                                              of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colnerie,
                                                                            Judges; F.G. Jacobs. Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
1.    Declares that, by authorising, under certain conditions, the          Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 April
      exclusion from the taxable amount for the purposes of value           2001, in which it has ruled:
      added tax of the compulsory price supplements claimed by
      certain taxable persons by way of remuneration for the service        The Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff as set
      provided (‘service charges’), the French Republic has failed to       out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July
      fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of the       1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
      Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              Customs Tariff, as amended by the Annexes to Commission
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to            Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 of 2 August 1989, Commission
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform            Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990 and Commission
      basis of assessment;                                                  Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, must be interpreted
                                                                            as meaning that between 1990 and 1992 satellite television receivers
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                          were to be classified under tariff heading 8528.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Case C-337/04: Action brought on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/9

         Action brought on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-337/04)
   (2004/C 239/16)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gérard Rozet and Christophe Giolito, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to enforce, within the period prescribed, the decision of 15 January 2002 concerning the State aid carried out by the French Republic in favour of Crédit Mutuel (State Aid C 88/1997 ex NN 183/1995; since published in OJ L 88, 4.4.2003, p. 39), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth subparagraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Considering that the attribution by the French public authorities in favour of Crédit Mutuel of the distribution right to the ‘Livret bleu’ savings scheme involved State aid incompatible with the common market, on 15 January 2002 the Commission adopted, under the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC, a decision requiring France to recover from Crédit Mutuel the aid granted since 1 January 1991 and to take measures to withdraw in future aid included in the ‘Livret bleu’ scheme and to improve supervision of it.
   On 18 June 2003 the French authorities sent a recovery order for EUR 117,9 million to Crédit Mutuel. However, the Commission notes that to date no amount of the aid has been reimbursed by Crédit Mutuel and no further action has been taken by France to recover that aid. In the Commission's view, therefore, France has not complied with the decision and since it has not alleged that compliance with the decision was absolutely impossible, which is the only defence available to it, it must be found that it failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
   Furthermore, the Commission does not agree regarding the simple interest method used by the French authorities to calculate interest to be paid on the amount to be recovered, nor regarding the amount of tax deducted from the amount to be recovered. It considers that only capitalisation of interest by the compound interest method will result in the neutralisation of the economic advantage from which Crédit Mutuel has benefited. Furthermore, the French authorities have not shown that the deduction of the tax from the amount to be recovered was made by application of the internal rules and in a non-discriminatory manner in comparison with similar cases governed by national law. Consequently, the amount to be recovered proposed by the French authorities does not permit the Commission decision to be implemented effectively.
   Finally, the Commission considers that France has not complied with Articles 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4) of the decision of 15 January 2002, intended to ensure the withdrawal of the elements of aid involved in the ‘Livret bleu’ scheme and the better supervision of the scheme, but has merely stated that the necessary measures were being taken. The Commission has to date nothing in its possession which might lead it to conclude that the decision has been implemented effectively on those points.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 November 2001 in Case C-277/98: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Supplementary levy on milk — Disputes between those liable to the levy and the competent national authorities — Proceedings before national courts — Negative corrections applied to Member States for supplementary levies not yet recovered)

text:
5.1.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 3/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs;
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                       of 13 November 2001                                  (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
in Case C-277/98: French Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Supplemen-
tary levy on milk — Disputes between those liable to the levy                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
and the competent national authorities — Proceedings before
national courts — Negative corrections applied to Member
       States for supplementary levies not yet recovered)                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 November 2001
                            (2002/C 3/03)
                                                                            in Case C-338/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: French)                                     ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive
                    in the European Court Reports)                          — National legislation allowing an employer to deduct, as
                                                                            input tax, a certain percentage of an allowance paid to an
                                                                                employee for business use of a private vehicle)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/04)
In Case C-277/98: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
and C. Vasak), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
Vaamonde) v Commission of the European Communities                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Agent: G. Berscheid) — application for partial annulment of
Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the
clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section                                   in the European Court Reports)
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28), in so far as it applies to the
French Republic ‘negative corrections’ for sums in respect of
supplementary levies the recovery of which was being disputed
                                                                            In Case C-338/98: Commission of the European Communities
in proceedings pending before national courts at the date of
                                                                            (Agents: initially E. Mennens and E. Traversa, subsequently
that decision — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            E. Traversa and H.M.H. Speyart) v Kingdom of the Netherlands
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                            (Agent: M.A. Fierstra, C. Wissels and J. van Bakel), supported
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
                                                                            by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
                                                                            (Agent: M. Ewing, assisted by N. Pleming) — application for a
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                            declaration that by providing, in breach of Articles 17(2)(a)
judgment on 13 November 2001, in which it:
                                                                            and 18(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
                                                                            1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                            relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on                 tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the
      the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in       version resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April
      respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section of       1995 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing new simpli-
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                 fication measures with regard to value added tax — scope of
      (EAGGF) in so far as it applies to the French Republic ‘negative      certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
      corrections’ for sums in respect of supplementary levies the          implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18), that an employer
      recovery of which was being disputed in proceedings pending           who is a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax
      before national courts at the date of that decision;                  may deduct part of an allowance paid to an employee for


title: Case C-365/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos v TAP Portugal

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos v TAP Portugal
   (Case C-365/11)
   2011/C 282/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos

      Defendant: TAP Portugal

      Question referred

   As a result of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 (1), in which it was held that Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (2) must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled where the time that they have lost due to the delayed flight is more than three hours, should the said articles be interpreted in the same way in the case of a flight that, having started on time at the place of departure, was delayed at the stop-over airport for three hours and fifty five minutes before taking off again because the airline, for operational reasons, decided to change equipment, where the equipment that replaced the previous equipment had already broken down prior to the stopover and needed a technical intervention, so that the flight arrived at the destination location with the said delay of three hours and fifty five minutes?

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 4

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1)


title: Case C-465/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 9 October 2014  — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v F. Wieland and H. Rothwangl

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 9 October 2014 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v F. Wieland and H. Rothwangl
   (Case C-465/14)
   (2014/C 448/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

      Respondents: F. Wieland, H. Rothwangl

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 3 and Article 94(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a former seaman who belonged to the crew of a vessel with a home port in a Member State, who had no place of residence on shore and who was not a national of a Member State, cannot be denied (in part) an old-age pension, after the State of which that seaman is a national acceded to (a legal predecessor of) the European Union or after Regulation No 1408/71 entered into force for that State, solely on the ground that that former seaman was not a national of the (first-mentioned) Member State during the period of the (claimed) insurance cover?

               2)

               Must Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State under which a seaman who belonged to the crew of a vessel with a home port in that Member State, who had no place of residence on shore and who is not a national of any Member State, was excluded from insurance cover for purposes of an old-age pension, whereas, under that rule, a seaman who is a national of the Member State in which the vessel has its home port and who is otherwise in the same situation is deemed to be insured, if the State of which the first-named seaman is a national has in the meanwhile, by the time of the determination of the pension, acceded to (a legal predecessor of) the European Union or Regulation No 1408/71 has in the meanwhile entered into force for that State?

               3)

               Must Questions 1 and 2 be answered in the same way in the case of a (former) seaman who, at the time of his employment, was a national of a State which at a later date accedes to (a legal predecessor of) the European Union, but who, at the time of that accession or the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71 for that State, and at the time of submitting his claim to entitlement to an old-age pension, was not a national of any Member State, but to whom Regulation No 1408/71 nevertheless applies pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation No 859/2003 (2)?

      (1)  Regulation of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

      (2)  Council Regulation of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case T-3/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — Ronja v Commission

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/22

         Action brought on 7 January 2013 — Ronja v Commission
   (Case T-3/13)
   2013/C 79/39
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ronja s.r.o. (Znojmo, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. Engin-Deniz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Hold a hearing;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission in Gestdem 2012/3329 and grant full access to the documents;

               —

               Declare that the Commission acted unlawfully by not initiating proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations against the Republic of Austria for infringement of Article 13 of Directive 2001/37/EC (1) and Article 34 TFEU on the basis of Paragraph 7a of the Austrian Tabakgesetz (‘the Law on tobacco’);

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the costs of the proceedings and the costs of representation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies inter alia on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Infringement of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2)

               Here the applicant submits in essence that the Commission refused full access to the requested documents (written correspondence between the Republic of Austria and the Commission in connection with complaint No 2008/4340 of alleged non-compliance of the Austrian Law on tobacco with Directive 2001/37) largely on the basis of the arguments of the Austrian authorities, without examining the content of those arguments. The applicant takes the view however that it was not access to the documents but the refusal of access which had negative effects on the action seeking to establish State liability which it brought before the Austrian Constitutional Court. It adds that the purpose of the exception in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 was rather to require access to the documents at issue to be granted.

               2.

               Failure to initiate proceedings for non-compliance with Treaty obligations against the Republic of Austria for infringement of Article 13 of Directive 2001/37 and Article 34 TFEU on the basis of Paragraph 7a of the Austrian Law on tobacco
               In this connection the applicant submits inter alia, that if proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations had been initiated, the Austrian Constitutional Court could not, in its decision on the applicant’s claims in respect of State liability, have come to the conclusion that Directive 2001/37 does not confer rights on undertakings, but only on consumers.

      (1)  Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26).

      (2)  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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-97/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 March 2014 — SMK Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 March 2014 — SMK Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal
   (Case C-97/14)
   2014/C 142/32
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SMK Kft.

      Defendants: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 55 of the VAT Directive (1) in force until 1 January 2010 be interpreted as referring only to those taxable persons receiving a supply of services who do not have, or are not required to have, an identification number for VAT purposes in the Member State of the place where the services are physically supplied?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 52 of the VAT Directive exclusively applicable for determination of the place of performance of the services?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, must Article 55 of the VAT Directive in force until 1 January 2010 be interpreted as meaning that, when the taxable person receiving the services covered by a contract has, or ought to have, an identification number for VAT purposes in more than one Member State, the decision of that recipient of the services exclusively determines the fiscal identification number under which it receives the supply of services (including cases in which the taxable person receiving the supply is deemed to be established in the Member State of the place of physical performance of the services, but also has an identification number for VAT purposes in another Member State)?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question should be that the right to decide of the recipient of the supply of services is limited, must Article 55 of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           until 31 December 2009, it may be considered that the supply of services was performed under the VAT identification number indicated by the recipient of that supply, if the latter also has the status of taxable person registered (established) in another Member State and the goods are sent or transported outside the Member State in which the supply has been physically performed?

                           —

                           is determination of the place of performance of the services influenced by the fact that the recipient of the supply is a taxable person established in another Member State which delivers the finished goods, sending or transporting them outside the Member State where the services have been supplied to an intermediate purchaser, who in turn re-sells the goods in a third Member State of the Community without the recipient of the services covered by the contract transporting the goods back to its establishment?

               5.

               If the recipient of the supply of services does not have an unlimited right to decide, do the following factors influence the applicability of Article 55 of the VAT Directive, in force until 1 January 2010:

                           —

                           the circumstances in which the recipient of certain works carried out on goods acquires the appropriate raw materials and places them at the disposal of the person carrying them out;

                           —

                           the Member State from which and the fiscal identification number under which the taxable person receiving the services effects delivery of the finished goods resulting from such works;

                           —

                           the fact that — as occurs in the main proceedings — the finished goods resulting from such works are the subject of various deliveries as part of a chain of operations, still within the country in which the works are carried out, and that they are transported directly from that country to the final purchaser?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-175/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Walter Hundhausen v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/52

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Walter Hundhausen v Commission
   (Case T-175/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/63)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Walter Hundhausen GmbH (Schwerte, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and G. Mathisen, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               3.

               Walter Hundhausen GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-472/98)

text:
13.3.1999              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 71/11
     the internal Community market and result in                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     discrimination or distort competition. Furthermore,
     such bilateral agreements concern questions coming
     under domestic legislation on the treatment to be
     accorded to undertakings which have their registered
     office outside the Community or in third countries.           (1) Ð declare that, by negotiating, signing and
                                                                            concluding in 1995, and applying individually, an
                                                                            open skies' agreement with the United States in
                                                                            the air transport sector, Luxembourg is in breach
Ð Agreements with a non-member country having such                          of its obligations under the Treaty, in particular
     effects on the internal market in air transport cannot                 Articles 5 and 52 thereof, and under secondary
     be concluded outside the Community framework.                          law adopted pursuant to the Treaty, in particular
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of
                                                                            23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers, Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (2) of 23 July 1992
                                                                            on access for Community air carriers to
Ð The provisions on the designation of carriers                             intra-Community routes, Council Regulation
     constitute an infringement of Article 52 of the Treaty                 (EEC) No 2409/92 (3) of 23 July 1992 on fares and
     (see the arguments in Case C-466/98).                                  rates for air services, Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2299/89 (4) of 24 July 1989, as amended by
                                                                            Regulation No 3089/93 (5) of 29 October 1993, on
                                                                            a code of conduct for computerised reservation
                                                                            systems,      and     Council       Regulation   (EEC)
Ð The negotiation of this type of bilateral agreement
                                                                            No 95/93 (6) of 18 January 1993 on common rules
     constitutes a breach of the obligations on Member
                                                                            for the allocation of slots at Community airports;
     States under Article 5 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                        Ð in the alternative, and additionally, declare, in so
Ð (Alternative submission) Breach of the obligations                        far as it considers that the 1995 agreement does
     following, in the case of Belgium, from Article 234 of                 not radically amend and therefore does not replace
     the EC Treaty.                                                         the agreements concluded previously, that
                                                                            Luxembourg is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                            Article 5 of the Treaty and under secondary law in
(1 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.                                             not rescinding, in those previous agreements, the
(2 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.                                             provisions which are incompatible with the Treaty,
(3 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15.                                            in particular Article 52, and with secondary law,
(4 ) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
                                                                            or by not taking all possible legislative measures to
(5 ) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
(6 ) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.                                              that end;
                                                                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                        costs.
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                          Luxembourg                               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                   in Case C-471/98 (7).
                        (Case C-472/98)
                         (1999/C 71/18)
                                                                   (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
                                                                   (3) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 15.
                                                                   (4) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
                                                                   (5) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                (6) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                (7) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
Communities on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Frank
Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-95/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal Groupe (ROYAL & CAPORAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ROYAL & CAPORAL — Earlier EU word mark KAPORAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Aydin v EUIPO — Kaporal Groupe (ROYAL & CAPORAL)
   (Case T-95/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ROYAL & CAPORAL - Earlier EU word mark KAPORAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 249/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Savas Aydin (Pantin, France) (represented by: F. Watrin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and S. Pétrequin, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kaporal Groupe (Marseilles, France) (represented by: J. André, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2015 (Case R 867/2015-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Kaporal Groupe and Mr Aydin.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Mr Savas Aydin to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case C-311/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), France Cartes SAS (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark — Figurative marks comprising the representation of a sword , a knight of clubs and a king of swords in a pack of cards — Declaration of invalidity of the mark)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), France Cartes SAS
   (Case C-311/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Figurative marks comprising the representation of a ‘sword’, a ‘knight of clubs’ and a ‘king of swords’ in a pack of cards - Declaration of invalidity of the mark)
   (2007/C 297/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, I. de Medrano Caballero and O. Mondéjar, Agents), France Cartes SAS represented by: C. de Haas, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2005 in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 Naipes Heraclio Fournier v OHIM (intervener: France Cartes SAS), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 February 2002, allowing the applications for declarations of invalidity brought by France Cartes SAS in respect of three figurative marks of which the applicant is proprietor
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243 of 1.10.2005.


title: Case T-521/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Alpinestars Research v OHIM — Tung Cho and Wang Yu (A ASTER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark A ASTER — Earlier Community word mark A-STARS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Alpinestars Research v OHIM — Tung Cho and Wang Yu (A ASTER)
   (Case T-521/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark A ASTER - Earlier Community word mark A-STARS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 279/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alpinestars Research Srl (Coste di Maser, Italy) (represented by: G. Dragotti, R. Valenti and S. Balice, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kean Tung Cho (Taichung City, Taiwan) and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu (Wuci Township, Taiwan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 (Case R 2309/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Alpinestars Research Srl, on the one hand, and Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu, on the other hand.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 July 2013 (Case R 2309/2012-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-599/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Souruh v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/19

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council
   (Case T-599/14)
   2014/C 361/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.


title: Case T-172/12: Action brought on 13 April 2012 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/23

         Action brought on 13 April 2012 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light)
   (Case T-172/12)
   2012/C 194/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 January 2012 in case R 2258/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear its own costs, in the event it intervenes before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Be Light’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 7165351

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 135285 of the word mark ‘BECK’s’, for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods in class 32 and allowed the contested trade mark to proceed for the remaining goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-154/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 December 2005  — Bauwens v Commission (Officials — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal exercise — Article 7 of the General Implementing Provisions — Deadline for submission of an application to refer a matter to the Joint Evaluation Committee — Suspension)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2005 — Bauwens v Commission
   (Case T-154/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal exercise - Article 7 of the General Implementing Provisions - Deadline for submission of an application to refer a matter to the Joint Evaluation Committee - Suspension)
   (2006/C 48/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Bauwens (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the counter-signing officer's decision of 15 July 2003 not to refer a matter to the Joint Evaluation Committee in the course of the procedure for the drawing-up of the applicant's career development report under Article 7 of the General Provisions Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the counter-signing officer's decision of 15 July 2003 not to refer the matter to the Joint Evaluation Committee;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.


title: Case T -231/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  9 January 2006  — Corsica Ferries France v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2006 — Corsica Ferries France v Commission
   (Case T -231/05) (1)

   (2006/C 74/63)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case T-520/15 P: Order of the General Court of 25 April 2016 — Filip Mikulik v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/22

         Order of the General Court of 25 April 2016 — Filip Mikulik v Council
   (Case T-520/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2016/C 222/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Filip Mikulik (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 25 June 2015 in Mikulik v Council (F 67/14, EU:F:2015:65), and seeking the annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Filip Mikulik to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.