title: Case T-204/03: Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            lished for the sale outside the United States of spare parts for
                                                                           its construction equipment infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC.
The applicant was an official at the Commission. By the                    The Commission rejected that complaint by its contested
decision challenged the Commission reprimanded the applicant               decision. In support of its action, the applicant claims that
following alleged false statements made by the him in connec-              the defendant made manifest errors of fact, as well as errors in
tion with his missions and leave.                                          the interpretation and application of the law, in finding that
                                                                           the application to the applicant of the system of selling spare
                                                                           parts for use outside the United States does not constitute an
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Commission Regu-              agreement within the meaning of Article 81 EC and by not
lation No 1 and Article 13 of the EC Treaty. He states that the            applying Article 82 EC although Caterpillar holds a dominant
defendant continued to use French in its letters to him in spite           position in the relevant market. The applicant also puts
of his request to use Danish or English. That constitutes,                 forward alleged infringements of procedural rules and of the
according to the applicant, language discrimination.                       complainant's rights in regard to the allegedly excessive length
                                                                           of the investigation of the complaint lodged by the applicant,
Secondly, the applicant pleads breach of medical confidentiality           the alleged failure to give reasons for the contested decision,
in so far as the defendant consulted its medical staff to                  the alleged lack of diligence and impartiality of the defendant
ascertain whether the applicant was fit to attend the hearing.             in the examination of the complaint, as well as the alleged
That opinion can be based, according to the applicant, only on             infringement of Article 6 of Regulation 2842/1998/EC (1) in
his medical history and his file and therefore constitutes a               that new matters appear for the first time in the contested
breach of professional secrecy.                                            decision without the applicant being able to submit its obser-
                                                                           vations with regard thereto.
Thirdly, the applicant pleads irregularities in the procedure in
so far as the complaints were not clearly formulated in the                (1) OJ 1998 L 354 p. 18.
minutes recording the opening of the disciplinary proceedings.
The applicant also pleads an infringement of rules of law, in
particular of Article 71 and Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l.
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-204/03)
                          (2003/C 200/49)                                                            (Case T-211/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/50)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
established in Sorgues (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis,
lawyer, which an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—     annul the Commission's decision of 1 April 2003                      13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l., represented by
      rejecting its complaint against Caterpillar;                         P. Tartuferi and M. Andreano. Industrias Químicas Naber S.A.
                                                                           was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
—     so far as necessary, undertake all measures of inquiry to            Appeal.
      order the Commission to produce all the documents
      relevant to determination of the dispute;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     annul the contested decision;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order OHIM and also Industrias Químicas Naber S.A., in
                                                                                the event that it should intervene, to pay the costs of the
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission against                     present proceedings together with the costs of the admin-
the Caterpillar Corporation, claiming that the system it estab-                  istrative proceedings before OHIM.


title: Case T-65/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Interim measures) of 30 April 2008 — Spain v Commission (Interim proceedings — Control of concentrations — Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Conditions imposed by the Spanish authorities on parties to a concentration declared incompatible with the common market — Application for stay of execution — Prima facie case — Lack of urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/18

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Interim measures) of 30 April 2008 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-65/08 R)
   (Interim proceedings - Control of concentrations - Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Conditions imposed by the Spanish authorities on parties to a concentration declared incompatible with the common market - Application for stay of execution - Prima facie case - Lack of urgency - Balance of interests)
   (2008/C 158/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2007) 5913 Final of 5 December 2007 (Case No COMP/M.4685 — Enel/Acciona/Endesa) in relation to a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-224/05: Action brought on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/27

         Action brought on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-224/05)
   (2005/C 205/49)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 June 2005 by Olivier Chassagne, residing in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Yola Minatchy, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare unlawful, and therefore inapplicable to the applicant, Article 8 of Annex VII to the new Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               —

               award the applicant EUR one (1) by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and the sum of EUR seven thousand three hundred and seventy two (7 372) by way of compensation for the financial damage sustained;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, is originally from the island of La Réunion, a French overseas department. He brought the present action following the rejection of a complaint which he had lodged against his payslip for August 2004, containing reimbursement of his annual travelling expenses.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, relating to reimbursement of officials' annual travelling expenses to their place of origin, is unlawful. He contends that that provision is contrary to Community law in that it gives rise to unequal treatment connected with the place of origin of officials and also to discrimination contrary to Articles 12 EC and 299 EC as against officials originating from French overseas departments, and also as regards nationality, the fact of belonging to a language minority, ethnic origin or race.
   The applicant also claims that that provision infringes other general principles of Community law, such as the obligation to state reasons and the principles of proportionality, transparency and sound administration, and also the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.


7.2.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 35/19
Removal from the register of Cases T-7/95 and T-22/95 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case T-349/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/31)                                                            (2004/C 35/34)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                                             (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                By order of 10 November 2003 the President of the Second
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-7/95: Josef               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Lang v Council of the European Union and Commission of                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
the European Communities; and of Case T-22/95: Therese                    T-349/02: Società Sephora v Office for Harmonisation in the
Schweiger v Council of the European Union and Commission                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
(1) OJ C 74 of 23.3.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-65/03 (1)
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-306/
                      01 and T-315/01 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/35)
                         (2004/C 35/32)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
           (Languages of the Cases: Swedish and English)
                                                                          By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the Second                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  T-65/03: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the European
register of the names of the appellants Abdirisak Aden and                Communities.
Abdi Abdulaziz Ali from the names of the appellants in the
Joined Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01: Abdirisak Aden and
Others v Commission of the European Communities.                          (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002 and OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-121/03 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/02 (1)                                              (2004/C 35/36)
                         (2004/C 35/33)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
By order of 20 October 2003 the President of the First                    Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 register of Case T-121/03: Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen
T-141/02: Vetoquinol AG v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) v Commission of the
Internal Market.                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.                                               (1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case T-598/13: Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/30

         Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
   (Case T-598/13)
   2014/C 24/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanctuary Brands LLC (New Canaan, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Richter International Ltd (Scarborough, Canada)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 August 2013 given in Case R 1115/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 325 549

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’, non-registered word mark and trade name ‘TAILORBYRD’ and the company name ‘Tailorbyrd, LLC’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for ‘clothing, shirts’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.


title: Case C-249/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directive 92/43/EC — Measure having equivalent effect — Prior authorisation for the planting of oysters and mussels of native species from other Member States — Justification — Protection of the life of animals — Maintenance of biodiversity and conservation of fish species in the interest of fisheries)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-249/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Directive 92/43/EC - Measure having equivalent effect - Prior authorisation for the planting of oysters and mussels of native species from other Member States - Justification - Protection of the life of animals - Maintenance of biodiversity and conservation of fish species in the interest of fisheries)
   (2009/C 19/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and S. Noe, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and C. ten Dam, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — System of prior authorisation for the planting of oysters and mussels from other Member States in Netherlands coastal waters
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by instituting a system of prior authorisation for the planting, in Netherlands coastal waters, of oysters and mussels coming lawfully from other Member States and being of species native to the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case C-331/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environmental liability — Directive 2004/35/EC — Prevention and remedying of environmental damage)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-331/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environmental liability - Directive 2004/35/EC - Prevention and remedying of environmental damage)
   2009/C 113/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and U. Wölker, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
C 304/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      13.12.2003
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (2003/C 304/37)
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
At its plenary meeting of 9 October 2003, the Court of First           in Case T-158/00 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-
Instance decided to supplement as follows the decision on the          rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik
composition of the chambers taken at the plenary meeting of            Deutschland (ARD) v Commission of the European Com-
2 July 2003 (OJ 2003 C 184, p. 32):                                                               munities (1)
In accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the         (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Pay-TV
Court of First Instance, for the period from 9 October 2003 to         and digital interactive television services markets — Serious
31 August 2004, Judge Dehousse is assigned to the First                doubts as to compatibility with the common market —
Chamber, Extended Composition, the Third Chamber and the               Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination
Third Chamber, Extended Composition.                                   — Time-limits — Modification of commitments — Insuf-
                                                                                ficiency of commitments)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance in deciding an application for
                       interim measures
                        (2003/C 304/38)                                In Case T-158/00 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtli-
                                                                       chen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
                                                                       (ARD), established in Cologne (Germany), represented by
                                                                       P. Mailänder and A. Bartosch, lawyers, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the
At its plenary meeting of 9 October 2003, the Court of First           European Communities (Agent: P. Wiedner), supported by
Instance decided to supplement as follows the decision taken           KirchPayTV GmbH & Co. KGaA, established in Unterföring
at the plenary meeting of 2 July 2003 (OJ 2003 C 184, p. 33)           (Germany), represented by K. Metzlaff, lawyer, with an address
on the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the         for service in Luxembourg, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc
Court of First Instance in deciding an application for interim         (BSkyB), established in Isleworth (United Kingdom), represent-
measures:                                                              ed by S. Wisking and D. Livingston, solicitors, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg, application for annulment of
                                                                       Commission Decision SG (2000) D/102552 of 21 March
                                                                       2000 (Case COMP/JV.37), which declared the notified concen-
In accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure of            tration by which BSkyB acquired joint control of KirchPayTV
the Court of First Instance, for the period from 9 October             to be compatible with the common market and with the
2003 to 31 August 2004, Judge Tiili is designated to replace           Agreement on the European Economic Area, pursuant to
the President of the Court of First Instance in deciding an            Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of
application for interim measures in the event that both the            21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between
President and Judge García-Valdecasas are absent or prevented          undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1), the Court of First Instance
from dealing with it.                                                  (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and
                                                                       K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
                                                                       for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
                                                                       which it:


title: Case C-189/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others
   (Case C-189/15)
   (2015/C 228/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia

      Defendants: Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas

      Questions referred

               1)

               Do Italian rules (such as those at issue in the main proceedings) which, first, include a definition of ‘energy-intensive businesses’ in line with the Directive and, secondly, grant companies of this type payment incentives covering general electricity charges (and not incentives relating to taxation of energy products and electricity as such) fall within the scope of Directive 2003/96/EC (1)?

         If so:

               2)

               Does EU law, and in particular Articles 11 and 17 of Directive 2003/96/EC, preclude a regulatory and administrative system (such as that in force in Italian law and described in the present order) which, first, opts to introduce a system of concessions on the consumption of energy products (electricity) by ‘energy-intensive businesses’ within the meaning of the above-mentioned Article 17 and, secondly, restricts the possibility of benefitting from those concessions to ‘energy-intensive’ businesses operating in the manufacturing sector only, thereby excluding businesses operating in other production sectors?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).


title: Case T-267/11: Action brought on 24 May 2011 — Video Research USA/OHMI (VR)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/31

         Action brought on 24 May 2011 — Video Research USA/OHMI (VR)
   (Case T-267/11)
   2011/C 211/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Video Research USA, Inc. (New York, U.S.A.) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2011 in case R 1187/2010-2;

               —

               Remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with a recommendation that restitutio in integrum be granted in respect of community trade mark application No 919324;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VR’ — Community trade mark registration No 919324

      Decision of the Trade Marks and Register Department: Rejected the request for restitutio in integrum and confirmed the cancellation of the Community trade mark registration No 919324

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in the application of this article and in its assessment of the facts in holding that the applicant’s representatives had failed to exercise due care in the circumstances.


title: Case T-503/04: Action brought on 27 December 2004 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/37

         Action brought on 27 December 2004 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-503/04)
   (2005/C 57/63)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 December 2004 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 9 October 2003 refusing to transfer him to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a Commission official, applied for a transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). His application having been rejected, the applicant brought an action before the Court (1) which resulted in annulment of the contested measure. (2) Following that annulment, the defendant took a fresh decision on the applicant's application and rejected it again by the decision contested by the present action.
   In support of his action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 233 EC, of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to state reasons, as well as an error in law. The applicant submits that the contested decision merely repeats the arguments put forward in the first decision to reject his application, which was annulled by the Court, and does not contain any explanation making it possible to ascertain whether the rejection of the applicant's application is based on an assessment of the various interests involved, as was required by the Court in its judgment. Moreover, the Commission wrongly took the view that the applicant's transfer would result in the closure of a disciplinary procedure against him. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful because the Commission took on the role of exercising the discretion of the EMCDDA Selection Board by claiming, in its reply to his complaint, that it could not be ruled out that the result of the EMCDDA's selection procedure would have been different if the Selection Board had been informed of the accusations against the applicant.

      (1)  Case T-166/02 (OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002, p. 32).

      (2)  Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2003 (OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003, p. 20).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 January 2005 in Case T-141/01 Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Financial participation in a demonstration project concerning the introduction of new cultivation techniques in sumac production — Cancellation of financial assistance from the fund)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 18 January 2005
   in Case T-141/01 Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Financial participation in a demonstration project concerning the introduction of new cultivation techniques in sumac production - Cancellation of financial assistance from the fund)
   (2005/C 69/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-141/01: Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by M. Belard-Kopke Marques-Pinto and C. Viñas Llebot, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Pardo and L. Visaggio, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – action for annulment of Commission Decision C(1999) 534 of 4 March 1999 cancelling the financial assistance of the Guidance Section of the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) initially granted to the applicant by Decision C(93)3394 of 26 November 1993, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 25), for the financing of a demonstration project concerning the introduction of new cultivation techniques in sumac production (Project No 93.ES.06.030) – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.


title: Case T-328/02: Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour Towage Rotterdam BV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 323/40                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.12.2002
According to the applicants, the contested decision further               2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations                mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999. According to the                      requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
applicants, they were entitled to rely on the legality of the aid               ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
since it had been approved by the Commission. Recovery of                       — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
aid received would run counter to the applicants’ legitimate                    1990;
expectations.
                                                                          3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
By altering its approach to fiscal measures for maritime
transport, the Commission, in adopting the contested decision,
also infringed the principle of legal certainty. In the applicants’
view, a change in the approach to aid measures cannot result              Pleas and main arguments
in already approved aid being classified as new rather than
existing aid.
                                                                          The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.
The applicants are also claiming infringements of the principles
of equal treatment and proportionality and of the requirement
to provide a statement of reasons.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 20 March 1999 laying
     down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
     Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
( 2) Community guidelines on State aid for maritime transport (OJ
     1997 C 205, p. 5).
                                                                          Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour
                                                                          Towage Rotterdam BV against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-328/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/66)
Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Muller Marine
Holding BV, Muller Maritime Holding BV and Handel-
en Scheepvaartmaatschappij Multraschip BV against the                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
          Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-327/02)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                         (2002/C 323/65)
                                                                          Communities on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour Towage
                                                                          Rotterdam BV, established in Rotterdam, represented by
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         T.R. Ottervanger, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European              1.    Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
Communities on 24 October 2002 by Muller Marine Holding                         19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
BV, Muller Maritime Holding BV and Handel- en Scheepvaart-                      favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
maatschappij Multraschip BV established in Rotterdam, rep-                      harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;
resented by T.R. Ottervanger, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                          2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
                                                                                mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:                   requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
                                                                                ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
                                                                                — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
1.     Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
                                                                                1990;
       19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
       favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
       harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;                 3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 323/41
Pleas and main arguments                                                 Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Wagenborg
                                                                         Sleepdienst BV against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.
                                                                                (Case T-330/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/68)
Action brought on 24 October 2002 by URS Nederland                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
BV against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-329/02)
                        (2002/C 323/67)                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 24 October 2002 by Wagenborg Sleepdienst
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         BV, established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
Communities on 24 October 2002 by URS Nederland BV,
established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               1.    Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
                                                                               19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
                                                                               favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:                  harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;
1.    Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of               2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
      19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in                  mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
      favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea                  requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
      harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;                       ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
                                                                               — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-                   1990;
      mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
      requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
      ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients           3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
      — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
      1990;
3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas and main arguments
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.
The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.


title: Case C-75/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) by order of that court of 21 January 1999 in the case of Edmund Thelen v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
1.5.1999                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 121/13
2. If the answer to question 3(1) above is yes: in proceedings           liable, even where the journalists in question are not themselves
     by company Y against company X in the national court of             liable to contribute to the artists’ social insurance scheme.
     Member State A, is that court obliged, by virtue of the
     said Directive, to override any provision which prevents            In the Commission’s view, the artists’ social security charge
     reliance by Company Y on the substantive provisions of              objectively constitutes an employer’s contribution which ulti-
     those implementing rules?                                           mately has the effect, both for the marketing undertaking and
                                                                         for the artist of journalist concerned, of a social insurance
                                                                         contribution. That outcome, is so far as it concerns artists or
(1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the              journalists who are insured, pursuant to Regulation (EEC)
    coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to            No 1408/71, under the social insurance scheme of another
    self-employed commercial agents (OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17).
                                                                         Member State, is inconsistent with the wording and purpose
                                                                         of that Regulation, according to which, in order to avoid
                                                                         double liability to pay social security contributions, persons
                                                                         liable to contribute to social security are in principle subject to
                                                                         the legislation of a single Member State only.
                                                                         Moreover, the artists’ social security charge is incompatible, in
                                                                         the form which it takes, with the principles of freedom of
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by the Commission                     establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty) and freedom to
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                   provide services (Article 59 of the EC Treaty). Where provisions
                            lic of Germany                               of Community law exempt an artist of journalist from the
                                                                         obligation to contribute to the — German — artists’ social
                                                                         insurance fund, the absence of the obligation to contribute is
                            (Case C-68/99)                               not based on particular characteristics of national legislative
                                                                         sovereignty and cannot be adjusted in accordance with purely
                           (1999/C 121/24)                               internal criteria (such as the prevention of possible distortions
                                                                         of competition).
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
ties on 25 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Peter Hillenkamp, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, and Andreas Buschmann, a national civil
servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              gericht (Federal Social Court) by order of that court of
                                                                         21 January 1999 in the case of Edmund Thelen v.
                                                                                Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
a) Declare that, by applying Section 23 et seq. of the
     Künstlersozialversicherungsgesetz (law on social insurance
     for artists) inter alia to artists and journalists who reside                                  (Case C-75/99)
     in another EU Member State and normally pursue a
     self-employed activity both in that other Member State and                                    (1999/C 121/25)
     in the Federal Republic of Germany, and who are thus
     exclusively subject, as regards the social security system, to      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the legislation of the Member State in the territory of             European Communities by an order of the Bundessozialgericht
     which they reside, the Federal Republic of Germany has              (Federal Social Court) of 21 January 1999, which was received
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 51, 52 and/or       at the Court Registry on 3 March 1999, for a preliminary
     59 of the EC Treaty and Title II of Regulation (EC)                 ruling in the case of Edmund Thelen v. Bundesanstalt für
     No 1408/71 (1) (first sentence of Article 14a(2) in conjunc-        Arbeit on the following question:
     tion with Article 13(1) and 13(2)(b);
                                                                             Are Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)
b) Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                   to be interpreted as meaning that, because of the principe
                                                                             of freedom of movement for workers, they do not preclude
                                                                             the continuance in force of a convention concluded
                                                                             between states in the field of unemployment insurance
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          which is more advantageous for the insured person,
                                                                             although in consequence of the reference period
The funds of the German artists’ social insurance scheme are                 entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits can no
provided, as to half, by contributions made by the persons                   longer be derived from the period before the entry into
insured and, as to the other half, by an artists’ social security            force of the Regulation?
charge. The latter is levied in the form of a contribution
payable inter alia by press undertakings and other publishing
                                                                         (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
houses and press agencies, and consists of a percentage of a
basis of assessment composed of the remuneration for artistic
or journalistic works or services paid to journalists by a person


title: Case C-139/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Joan Cuadrench More v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Joan Cuadrench More v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)
   (Case C-139/11)
   2011/C 179/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Joan Cuadrench More

      Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)

      Question referred

   Is Regulation (EC) No [261]/2004 (1) 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 to be interpreted as meaning that, as regards time-limits for bringing proceedings, Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, establishing a two year period, is applicable, or must some other Community provision or the relevant domestic law be regarded as applicable?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-195/96)

text:
 24 . 8 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 247/5
 The questions referred by that court to the Court of Justice                a result of the scheme for the cessation of milk
 for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                   production provided for by Council Regulation
 C-101 /96 ( ).                                                              ( EEC ) No 1637/91 ('), a mechanism whereby, first,
                                                                             non-priority producers do not see the disappearance of
 (>) OJ No C 158 , 1996 , p . 3 .                                            the reduction in their reference quantities occurring
                                                                             during the eighth period but face a definitive further
                                                                             reduction in their reference quantities , and whereby,
                                                                             second , the redistribution to producers of the reference
                                                                             quantities freed is carried out on the basis of the
 Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Federal Republic                      cessation volume recorded in respect of their purchaser,
 of Germany against the Commission of the European                           the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                              Communities                                    under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1637/91 of 13 June
                          ( Case C-195/96 )                                  1991 fixing compensation with regard to the reference
                                                                             quantities referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )
                             ( 96/C 247/08 )
                                                                             No 804/68 ( 2 ) and compensation for the definitive
                                                                             discontinuation of milk production ( OJ No L 150 ,
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             1991 , p. 30 ) and to observe the principle of
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  non-discrimination laid down in Article 40 ( 3 ) of the
 European Communities on 10 June 1996 by the Federal
                                                                             Treaty ;
Republic of Germany , represented by Ernst Roder,
Ministerialrat, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat, of the
Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs , D-53107 Bonn .                   2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 1 . annul Decision K(96 ) 1203 final of the Commission of
      13 March 1 996 concerning the grant of State aid by the           The action concerns the situation arising in particular from
      Freistaat Bayern ( Free State of Bavaria ) to the ECSC            an order of 6 April 1 992 relating to the distribution of the
      steel undertaking Neuc Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH ,                reference quantities freed pursuant to Decree No 91-835 of
      Sulzbach-Rosenberg;                                               30 August 1991 , published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                        French Republic of 3 May 1992 , p. 6123 .
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     ( As regards the discriminatory distribution of the national
                                                                        reserve quantities )
— failure to comply with essential procedural formalities
     ( obligation to provide a statement of reasons in                 The principle of non-discrimination ( Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
     accordance with Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty ),                  Treaty ) prohibits any distribution of reference quantities
                                                                       whereby allocations to specified producers are made
— erroneous application of Articles 4 ( c ) and 83 of the              conditional on the volume of the quantities freed by other
     ECSC Treaty .                                                     producers supplying the same purchaser. This applies both
                                                                        in respect of the distribution of available funds arising from
The main arguments are the same as those in Case                       the discontinuance of activities and as regards funds
C-399/95 (').                                                           becoming available as a result of an across-the-board levy .
                                                                       Considerations connected with the need for decentralized
(') O J No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 5 .                               management, such as those cited by the French authorities ,
                                                                       cannot justify any failure to observe that principle .
                                                                       The Commission rejects the argument regarding the
Action brought on 11 June 1996 by the Commission of the                maintenance of a balance between different regions and
    European Communities against the French Republic                   different undertakings . Far from promoting a regional
                                                                       balance, the link established by the French rules between the
                         ( Case C-198/96 )                             level of the allocation of reference quantities within a
                            ( 96/C 247/09 )                            collection zone and the rate of discontinuation within that
                                                                       zone will result in the penalization of the most efficient
An action against the French Republic was brought before               regions .
the Court of Justice on 1 1 June 1 996 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis,
                                                                       ( As regards the failure to comply with Article 2 ( 4 ) ( a ) of
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Regulation No 1637/91 )
Kirchberg.
                                                                       The order of 6 April 1992 fails to observe the Member
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           States ' obligation to reconstitute the reference quantities
                                                                       reduced during the eighth period ( in France, 2,15% ).
1 . declare that, by setting up, in the context of the                 Although , according to Article 4 of that order, Onilait is to
     redistribution of the reference quantities freed as               reconstitute the reference quantities by making allocations


title: Case C-476/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B de C.V., against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2015 in Case T-618/14 Grupo Bimbo v OHIM

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/4

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B de C.V., against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2015 in Case T-618/14 Grupo Bimbo v OHIM

   (Case C-476/15 P)
   (2016/C 165/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 15 March 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de C.V., to bear its own costs.


title: Order of the Court of 5 March 1999 in Case C-153/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Time-limit for the bringing proceedings - No indication of the time-limit or of the legal remedies available)

text:
5.6.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 160/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       2. Guérin Automobiles EURL is ordered to pay the costs of the
                                                                                proceedings.
                         of 5 March 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
in Case C-153/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Time-limit for the bringing proceedings — No
indication of the time-limit or of the legal remedies available)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (1999/C 160/01)
                                                                                of 5 March 1999
                    (Language of the case: French)                           in Case C-154/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — No
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       indication of the time-limit or of the legal remedies available)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/02)
In Case C-153/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL, a company in
judicial liquidation, established at Alençon (France), acting
in the person of Xavier Lemée, liquidator, represented by                                        (Language of the case: French)
Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
Rue Béatrix de Bourbon — appeal against the order of the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second                                     in the European Court Reports)
Chamber) of 13 February 1998 in Case T-275/97 Guérin
Automobiles v. Commission 1998 ECR II-253, seeking to
have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings                In Case C-154/98 P: Guérin Automobiles EURL, a company in
being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    judicial liquidation, established at Alençon (France), acting
Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier) — the Court, composed                     in the person of Xavier Lemée, liquidator, represented by
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. P.             Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of D.A.O. Edward,              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;                Rue Béatrix de Bourbon — appeal against the order of the
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
an order on 5 March 1999, the operative part of which is as                  Chamber) of 13 February 1998 in Case T-276/97 Guérin
follows:                                                                     Automobiles v. Commission 1998 ECR II-261, seeking to
                                                                             have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                                                                             being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                  Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier) — the Court, composed


title: Case T-108/11 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by the European Training Foundation (ETF) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08 Vandeuren v ETF

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/22

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by the European Training Foundation (ETF) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08 Vandeuren v ETF
   (Case T-108/11 P)
   2011/C 139/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Monique Vandeuren (Pino Torinese, Italy)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant contends that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08,

               —

               consequently, dismiss the action brought at first instance and, therefore,

               —

               order the respondent to the appeal to pay the entire costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon by the appellant are identical to those relied upon in Case T-107/11 P ETF v Schuerings.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/57

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-58/04)
   (2004/C 94/149)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUDWEISER for Classes 9 and 14 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ — Application No 739177 in respect of goods in Classes 9 (scientific apparatus etc) and 14 (jewellery etc)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUDWEISER BIER’, ‘BUDWEISER BIER – BUDVAR’, ‘BUDWEISER BUDVAR’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 November 2002 in Case C-392/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
C 19/8                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 10 December 2002                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 November 2002
in Case C-362/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                            ties v Ireland ( 1)
                                                                               in Case C-392/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
to transpose Directive 98/5/EC — Reasoned opinion —
Failure to take into account observations submitted by the                     (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Member State in response to the formal notice — Bearing on                     Directive 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Failure
                              admissibility)                                               to implement within the prescribed period)
                            (2003/C 19/14)                                                                  (2003/C 19/15)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-362/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan, assisted by
D. McGuinness, SC, and D. R. Phelan, BL): Application for a
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                In Case C-392/01, Commission of the European Communities
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive                   (Agent: I. Martínez del Peral) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
98/5/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of                          L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by failing
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of                   to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than                       necessary to comply with Directive 97/55/EC of the European
that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77,                    Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending
p. 36), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, Ireland                Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the                 to include comparative advertising (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18), or,
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                        in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of the
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmer-                  adoption of any such measures, the Kingdom of Spain has
mans (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                   failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha                    (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                   of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December                       (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
2002, in which it:                                                             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 November
                                                                               2002, in which it:
1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed
       the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
       comply with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament                      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       and the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of                 comply with Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament
       the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member                     and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/
       State other than that in which the qualification was obtained,                450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include
       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.            comparative advertising, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under that directive.
2.     Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                               2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case C-161/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Südzucker Mannheim/Ochsenfurt AG v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Failure to complete the customs formalities for export from the Community - Consequences - Principle of proportionality)

text:
C 72/4               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.3.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 29 January 1998                                                    of 29 January 1998
in Case C-161/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     in Case C-315/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Südzucker Mannheim/Ochsenfurt
                                                                     the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Lopex Export GmbH v.
             AG v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (1)
                                                                                Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
(Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
Ð Failure to complete the customs formalities for export             (Customs duty Ð Classification of goods Ð Regulation
from the Community Ð Consequences Ð Principle of                     amending classification Ð Binding tariff information
                        proportionality)                                              issued previously Ð Validity)
                          (98/C 72/06)                                                         (98/C 72/07)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (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-161/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal
Finance Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings          In Case C-315/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
pending before that court between Südzucker Mannheim/                of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Hamburg
Ochsenfurt AG and Hauptzollamt Mannheim Ð on the                     (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of                pending before that court between Lopex Export GmbH
14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing                  and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Ð on the validity of
rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota          the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
(OJ L 262, 16.9.1989, p. 14), read in conjunction with               Council Regulation (EEC) No 1715/90 of 20 June 1990
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3183/80 of 3 December                 on the information provided by the customs authorities of
1980 laying down common detailed rules for the                       the Member States concerning the classification of goods
application of the system of import and export licences              in the Customs Nomenclature (OJ L 160, 26.6.1990, p. 1)
and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products            and, if it is declared invalid, on the consequences of such
(OJ L 338, 13.12.1980, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth                      invalidity Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C.
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                     Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger,            and P. Jann, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. A.
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January                a judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
1998, in which it has ruled:
Consideration of the question referred has not revealed              Consideration of the first indent of the first paragraph of
any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of               Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1715/90 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of                            20 June 1990 on the information provided by the customs
14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing                  authorities of the Member States concerning the
rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota,         classification of goods in the Customs Nomenclature, in
read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EEC)                 the light of the principle of the protection of legitimate
No 3183/80 of 3 December 1980 laying down common                     expectations and the principle of legal certainty, has not
detailed rules for the application of the system of import           disclosed the existence of any factors of such a kind as to
and export licences and advance fixing certificates for              affect its validity.
agricultural products.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-377/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Arable crops)

text:
C 274/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.11.2002
2.    Community law does not prohibit a Member State from                   the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
      resisting actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of        and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 226, p. 26), in so far
      Community law by relying on a time-limit under national law           as it imposes on the Federal Republic of Germany a flat-rate
      of three years, by way of derogation from the ordinary rules          correction of 5 % to the expenditure declared in respect of
      governing actions between private individuals for the recovery of     financial support in the arable crops sector in Mecklenburg-
      sums paid but not due, for which the period allowed is more           Vorpommern, equal to the sum of DEM 30 394 115,33,
      favourable, provided that that time-limit applies in the same         instead of 2 %, equal to the sum of DEM 12 157 646,13 —
      way to actions based on Community law for repayment of such           the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of
      charges as to those based on national law.                            the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                            A. La Pergola, and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; C. Stix-
3.    Community law precludes the adoption by a Member State of             Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the
      provisions making repayment of a tax held to be contrary to           Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2002, in
      Community law by a judgment of the Court, or whose                    which it:
      incompatibility with Community law is apparent from such a
      judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax
      which are less favourable than those which would otherwise be         1.    Dismisses the action;
      applied to repayment of the tax in question.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 19 September 2002
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
in Case C-377/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case C-413/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Baumbast, R v
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                               Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)
                           — Arable crops)
                                                                            (Freedom of movement for persons — Migrant worker —
                           (2002/C 274/02)                                  Rights of residence of members of the migrant worker’s
                                                                            family — Rights of the children to pursue their studies in
                                                                            the host Member State — Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (EEC) No 1612/68 — Citizenship of the European Union —
                                                                            Right of residence — Directive 90/364/EEC — Limitations
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                and conditions)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/03)
In Case C-377/99, Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
initially by W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski and sub-
sequently W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön) v Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and
G. Braun) — application for partial annulment of Commission
Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999, amending Decision
1999/187/EC on the clearance of the accounts presented by                   In Case C-413/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of                 EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for


title: Case T-234/02: Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Christos Michael against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.10.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
                                                                          Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant, a former Commission official, claims that he
was the victim of harassment by the Commission. He alleges,
in that respect, wilful failure to implement a judgment of the                                     (Case T-239/02)
Court of First Instance (1), breach of the obligation to provide
reasons, breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-
discrimination and breach by the Commission of its duty to                                         (2002/C 247/34)
have regard for the welfare of officials.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) Case T-214/00 X v Commission [2001] ECR FP-IA-143 ; FP-II-
     663.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
                                                                          Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH, of Langen (Ger-
Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Christos Michael                       many), represented by K. Landry and L. Harings, lawyers.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-234/02)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 247/33)                                  —     annul the Commission’s decision No REC 4/01 of 5 March
                                                                                2002;
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                          —     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
                                                                                costs necessarily incurred in the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 August 2002 by Christos
Michael, resident in Brussels, represented by K. Tagaras,                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Lawyer.
                                                                          On the basis of oral information provided by the competent
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               customs authority, to the effect that production of import
                                                                          certificates for the importation of chickens in the context of
—      allow the application;                                             two specific quotas was not necessary, the applicant on 24 July
                                                                          1995 submitted a declaration in respect of the import in
—      annul the contested measures;                                      several consignments of frozen chicken pieces originating in
                                                                          Thailand under CN Code No 0207 41 10. — The competent
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                              principal customs office initially granted relief from import
                                                                          duties, but subsequently charged the applicant import duties
                                                                          amounting to EUR 113 566,14. The applicant raised an
                                                                          objection to that decision and the national authorities referred
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the matter to the Commission for a decision. By the contested
                                                                          decision, the Commission found that the import duties were
                                                                          to be entered in the accounts after the event.
This is an action challenging the decision concerning the
appointment of officials to the posts of Deputy Head of Unit
DG FC.A.1 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
Agences’ in that unit.                                                    The pleas in law and arguments correspond to those advanced
                                                                          in Case T-309/01 Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Com-
                                                                          mission (1).
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45
of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment.
He also claims that there was a manifest error of assessment              (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 14.
and misuse of powers in making the contested appointments.


title: Case T-417/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores v Commission
   (Case T-417/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

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

      Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU), (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CR;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.