title: Case T-175/10: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2011 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO) (Community trade mark — Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/28

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2011 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)
   (Case T-175/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 145/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2010 (Case R 1116/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign FERTILITYINVIVO as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 May 2004 in Case T-165/02: Enrique José Lloris Maeso v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — No steps taken by the applicant — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/39

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 May 2004
   in Case T-165/02: Enrique José Lloris Maeso v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - No steps taken by the applicant - No need to adjudicate)
   (2004/C 228/88)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-165/02: Enrique José Lloris Maeso, residing in Valencia (Spain), represented by Julian Bosch Abaraca, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by José Rivas Andrés and Juan José Gutiérrez Gisber, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 awarding him in the preselection stage a number of points insufficient for him to be admitted to the tests in that competition —, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 26 May 2004 the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to proceed to judgment;

               2.

               The applicant shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 26.10.2002.


title: Case T-472/08: Action brought on 22 October 2008 — Companhia Muller de Bebidas v OHIM — Missiato Industria e Comercio (61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/38

         Action brought on 22 October 2008 — Companhia Muller de Bebidas v OHIM — Missiato Industria e Comercio (61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA)
   (Case T-472/08)
   (2009/C 6/75)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Companhia Muller de Bebidas (Pirassununga, Brazil) (represented by: G. Da Cunha Ferreira and I. Bairrão, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Missiato Industria e Comercio Lda (Santa Rita do Passa Quatro, Brazil)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 July 2008 in case R 1687/2007-1, inasmuch as it upheld the decision allowing the registration of the Community trade mark concerned;

               —

               Declare the registration of the Community trade mark concerned invalid for all goods protected, on the basis that there is a likelihood of confusion with the trade marks cited in the opposition proceedings; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA’ for goods in class 33

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

      Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 273 105 of the figurative mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33; Portuguese trade mark registration No 331 952 of the figurative mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33; Benelux trade mark registration No 576 901 of the figurative mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in classes 32 and 33; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1998 03649 of the figurative mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 248 316 of the series of figurative marks ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 354 943 of the figurative mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33; German trade mark registration No 30 071 545 of the figurative mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’; Austrian trade mark registration No 161 564 of the figurative mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33; Portuguese well-known figurative trade mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33; Portuguese well-known word trade mark ‘CACHAÇA 51’ for goods in class 33.

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks; Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the evidence submitted by the applicant was not sufficient to prove the well known character of the earlier trade marks in Portugal, or, at least its enhanced distinctiveness as a whole.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 1999 in Case C-327/97 P: Christos Apostolidis and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Remuneration — Weighting coefficient — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance)

text:
8.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 6/5
industries (OJ 1997 L 334, p. 25), — the Court, composed of:            composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch          Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almei-          J.L. Murray and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
da, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and                 eral; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,          given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
Registrar; has given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which
it:                                                                     1. Article 11(4) of Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of
                                                                             11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member
1. Dismisses the application;                                                States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for
                                                                             application of the common system of value added tax, authorised
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                              Member States to introduce or retain, and Article 17(6) of Sixth
                                                                             Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                             harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.                                                   turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment, authorises them to retain, general exclusions
                                                                             from the right to deduct the value added tax payable on the
                                                                             purchase of motor cars used by a taxable person for the purposes
                                                                             of his taxable transactions, even though
                                                                             — those cars were essential tools in the business of the taxable
                                                                                person concerned, or
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             — those cars could not, in a specific case, be used for private
                                                                                purposes by the taxable person concerned.
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                        2. On a proper construction of Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive
                                                                             77/388, Member States may retain the exclusions from the
                      of 5 October 1999
                                                                             right to deduct value added tax referred to in its second
                                                                             subparagraph, even though the Council did not decide, before the
in Case C-305/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    expiry of the period laid down in the first subparagraph, which
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales)): Royscot                            expenditure should not be eligible for deduction of value added
Leasing Ltd and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd, Allied                       tax.
Domecq plc, T.C. Harrison Group Ltd v Commissioners
                    of Customs & Excise (1)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
(VAT — Article 11(1) and (4) of the Second Directive —
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Directive — Right of
deduction — Exclusions by national rules predating the
                        Sixth Directive)
                         (2000/C 6/09)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 5 October 1999
                                                                        in Case C-327/97 P: Christos Apostolidis and Others v
In Case C-305/97, reference to the Court under Article 177 of                   Commission of the European Communities (1)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling           (Appeal — Remuneration — Weighting coefficient —
in the proceedings pending before that court between Royscot             Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance)
Leasing Ltd and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd, Allied Domecq
plc, T.C. Harrison Group Ltd and Commissioners of Customs                                           (2000/C 6/10)
& Excise — on the interpretation of Article 11(4) of Second
Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning                                     (Language of the case: French)
turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of
the common system of value added tax (OJ, English Special
Edition 1967, p. 16) and of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                                    in the European Court Reports)
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-              In Case C-327/97 P: Christos Apostolidis and Others, officials
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                 and members of the temporary staff of the Commission of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 6/6                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.1.2000
European Communities, employed in the European Institute                   Divisione Sintetici SpA and Bodetex BVBA on the interpret-
for Transuranic Elements, Karlsruhe (Germany), represented                 ation of Articles 2 and 5(1) of the abovementioned Convention
by J.-N. Louis, T. Demaseure and A. Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,           of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, Rue de Cessange — appeal against                Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
Communities (Third Chamber) of 10 July 1997 in Case                        — amended text — p. 77) — the Court composed of:
T-81/96 Apostolidis and Others v Commission [1997] ECR-                    G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puisso-
SC I-A-207 and II-607, seeking to have that judgment set                   chet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moit-
aside, the other party to the proceedings being Commission of              inho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm
the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall),             and L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger,
supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents:                    Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
M. Bishop and D. Canga Fano) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                      On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of
R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                  27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it:                                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                           Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
1. Dismisses the appeal in its entirety;                                   Northern Ireland, the same court does not have jurisdiction to hear
                                                                           the whole of an action founded on two obligations of equal rank
2. Orders the applicants, the Commission of the European Com-              arising from the same contract when, according to the conflict rules
    munities and the Council of the European Union to bear their           of the State where that court is situated, one of those obligations is to
    own costs.                                                             be performed in that State and the other in another Contracting
                                                                           State.
(1) OJ No C 357 of 22.11.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 5 October 1999
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-420/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 5 October 1999
the Hof van Cassatie): Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA
                        v Bodetex BVBA (1)
                                                                           in Case C-433/97 P: IPK-München GmbH v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Articles 2 and
5(1) — Commercial agency agreement — Action founded on
                                                                           (Appeal — Annulment of a decision of the Commission to
separate obligations arising from the same contract and
                                                                                refuse to pay the balance of financial assistance)
regarded as equal in rank — Jurisdiction of the court seised
                     to hear the whole action)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/12)
                           (2000/C 6/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (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-433/97 P: IPK-München GmbH, established in
                                                                           Munich (Germany), represented by H.-J. Priess, of the Brussels
In Case C-420/97: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                Bar, 13 Place des Barricades, B-1000 Brussels — appeal against
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of            the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                Communities (First Chamber) of 15 October 1997 in Case
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                   T-331/94 IPK v Commission [1997] ECR 11-1665, seeking to
by the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in              have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
the proceedings pending before that court between Leathertex               being Commission of the European Communities (Agent:


title: Case F-126/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9.4.2013 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/41

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9.4.2013 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission
   (Case F-126/12) (1)

   2013/C 171/86
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013, p. 29.


title: Case T-136/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASmALI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark BASmALI — Earlier non-registered trade mark or earlier sign BASMATI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASmALI)
   (Case T-136/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BASmALI - Earlier non-registered trade mark or earlier sign BASMATI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tilda Riceland Private Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, N. Urwin and D. Sills, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Siam Grains Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2013 (Case R 1086/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Tilda Riceland Private Ltd and Siam Grains Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 December 2013 (Case R 1086/2012-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tilda Riceland Private Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-159/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2013 by Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 January 2013 in Case T-474/09 Fercal v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (Jackson Shoes)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/18

         Appeal brought on 28 March 2013 by Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 January 2013 in Case T-474/09 Fercal v OHIM — Jacson of Scandinavia (Jackson Shoes)
   (Case C-159/13 P)
   2013/C 171/36
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (represented by: A.J. Rodrigues, advogado)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of 24 January 2013 of the Fifth Chamber of the General Court in Case T-479/09 and, consequently, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 August 2009 in Case R 1253/2008-2 in annulment proceedings No 2004 C (trade mark application No 1 077 858, JACKSON SHOES), notified to the appellant on 30 September 2009, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Community law;

               —

               accordingly, declare that the appellant’s mark remains valid and in force;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   Although there are graphic and phonetic similarities between the names JACKSON and JACSON, the comparison of the conflicting signs should be made taking the signs as a whole: JACKSON SHOES/JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB.
   It results from Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 that the average consumer’s perception of the marks is decisive in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
   An average consumer who makes a global assessment of the conflicting signs will clearly perceive that the two signs are distinctive and of a different type: a trade mark and a trade name — in this instance, as a result of the insertion of the initials ‘AB’, which contribute to dismissing any likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer as a result of the mark ‘JACKSON SHOES’.
   In the appellant’s view, that aspect is relevant, since Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC establishes that the perception of the marks by the average consumer is decisive in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
   They are signs with very definite and distinct functions: the mark is a sign which is sufficient to distinguish the products or services of one undertaking from those of another (Article 4 in fine of the Trade Mark Regulation), while the trade name identifies an undertaking and distinguishes it from other undertakings.
   On the other hand, the use of similar names — which are commonly used in various countries — is not likely to lead to a likelihood of confusion when those names are combined with other elements which do not give rise to confusion on the part of the average consumer and, therefore, do not give rise to unfair competition by leading to confusion between the appellant’s goods and those of the respondent.
   An exclusive right to use (in all the Member States of the European Union!) cannot be granted (on the basis of a mere trade name in Sweden) to a name which is commonly used in many countries in the European Union by thousands of people, and also by other undertakings.
   The respondent can also not be granted the right to prevent the appellant from registering the mark JACKSON SHOES in Class 25, when other Community trade marks have already been registered in Class 25 with that very name.
   Moreover, the respondent acknowledges that the various marks listed and described by the appellant exist on the market, and it has never called any of them into question, never claimed that any of them were likely to lead to confusion on the part of the average consumer, nor claimed that they were in conflict.
   Anyone who opts for a distinctive sign made up of an element with weak distinctive character, which is also present in many other distinctive signs of third parties, cannot prevent that same sign (or a similar one) from being reused by third parties, in combination with other elements.
   There is nothing precluding the coexistence — which is, in fact, already the case — of distinctive signs with similar names, provided that the marks are distinctive on the whole.
   Contrary to what the respondent claims, the appellant has submitted sufficient evidence of its existence and that it is operative commercially not only within the Community but also in countries in North America and North Africa, though not — like the respondent — in the form of catalogues, which are printed only in its mother tongue — thus limiting the geographical scope — but in a multilingual fashion in the form of presentations at the world’s most important shoe fairs.
   The Community trade mark JACKSON SHOES cannot be confused with the trade name JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB all the more since they have coexisted for quite some time and neither party has complained of damage resulting from their coexistence, nor called the competition between the products into question. That is because consumers also realise, when faced with the conflicting signs, that they are faced with a trade mark and trade name which, unquestionably, are two distinct signs of a different type.
   Moreover, as recognised in the judgment under appeal and accepted by the parties, there is no confusion between the signs on the part of the average consumer and, therefore, they are not likely to be confused with one another, and ‘… the assessment of the similarity of marks must take account of the overall impression created by them (see Case T-438/07 Spa Monopole v OHIM — De Francesco Import (SpagO) ECR II-4115, paragraph 23 and case-law cited).’
   Furthermore, for a correct decision to be made in this case, it is highly important to take note of the fact that OHIM has authorised the registration of various marks containing the expression ‘JAKSON’ in relation to shoes, and cannot ignore that reality entirely when deciding on an application to register a new Community trade mark with the same (ordinary) name, ‘JAKSON’.
   In ignoring that reality, OHIM acted arbitrarily and thereby infringed the principle of equality.
   The judgment under appeal infringes Articles 8(4) and 53(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark.

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-1/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Siegen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Frank Weber (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Temporary suspension of a driving licence — Withdrawal of right to drive — Validity of a second driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of temporary suspension)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Siegen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Frank Weber
   (Case C-1/07) (1)

   (Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Temporary suspension of a driving licence - Withdrawal of right to drive - Validity of a second driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of temporary suspension)
   (2009/C 6/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Siegen
   Party in the main proceedings
   Frank Weber
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Siegen — Interpretation of Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Non-recognition by the Member State of residence, in its territory, of a driving licence obtained in another Member State during a driving ban before the administrative withdrawal of the right to drive by the Member State of residence
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not precluded from refusing to recognise, in its territory, a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person whose right to drive was withdrawn, in the territory of the first Member State, even though that withdrawal was ordered after the issue of that driving licence, provided that the licence was obtained during a period in which a licence issued in the first Member State was suspended and both the suspension and the withdrawal are based on grounds existing at the date of issue of the second driving licence.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-251/02: Action brought on 16 August 2002 by E against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/26               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12.10.2002
Grounds of claim:              —      The Decision is in breach of         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                      Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                      (EC) No 40/94: The Board of
                                      Appeal failed to draw the
                                      correct inferences from the          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                      cited evidence, misapplied
                                      the test of relevant public,
                                                                           The applicant, an official of the Economic and Social Com-
                                      failed to apply the law con-
                                                                           mittee of the European Communities, applied for the post of
                                      sistently and failed to pro-
                                                                           head of the Italian Translation and Transcription Division of
                                      vide proper reasoning.
                                                                           the Logistics and Translation Directorate. However, the Bureau
                               —      The Decision is in breach of         of the Economic and Social Committee rejected her application
                                      Article 7(3) of Regulation           and appointed another candidate to that post.
                                      (EC) No 40/94: The Board of
                                      Appeal failed to apply the           In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
                                      test for acquired distinc-
                                      tiveness correctly, failed to        —     infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations;
                                      interpret the evidence associ-
                                      ated with various goods and
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                                      services correctly and did not
                                      provide adequate reasoning.
                                                                           —     manifest error of assessment;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle that officials should have reason-
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-                  able career prospects;
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                           —     abuse of process;
                                                                           —     breach of the duty to provide reasons.
Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Carla Faita against
Economic and Social Committee of the European Com-                         Action brought on 16 August 2002 by E against Com-
                             munities                                                  mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-248/02)                                                           (Case T-251/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/42)
                         (2002/C 247/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Economic and Social Committee of the                 European Communities on 16 August 2002 by E, residing in
European Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Brussels, represented by Laure Levi and Georges Vandersanden,
Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2002                     lawyers.
by Carla Faita, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      29 August 2001 fixing the applicant’s place of origin and
                                                                                place of recruitment as Brussels and refusing to grant her
—     annul the decisions of the Bureau of the Economic and                      the expatriation allowance, installation allowance, daily
      Social Committee of the European Communities to reject                     subsistence allowance, travel expenses and removal
      the applicant’s candidature for the post of head of the                    expenses relating to her taking up her duties at the
      Italian Translation and Transcription Division of the                      Commission on 16 July 2001.
      Logistics and Translation Directorate and to appoint
      another candidate to the post;                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        —     Article 71 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                       —     Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 17(2) of Annex VII to the
                                                                             Staff Regulations;
The applicant is contesting the appointing authority’s refusal
to consider that, during the reference period laid down in the         —     the general provisions implementing of the Commission
Staff Regulations and until she was recruited, she made London               Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;
the permanent or habitual centre of her interests with a view
to maintaining it there.                                               —     Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations;
                                                                       —     the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the Euro-
                                                                             pean Communities of 8 April 1965.
In support of her arguments, she alleges infringement of:
                                                                       Finally, the applicant claims that there has been a manifest
—     the principle of non-discrimination;                             error of assessment in the present case.


title: Case T-41/17: Action brought on 24 January 2017 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Schöller (Representation of a koala)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/16

         Action brought on 24 January 2017 — Lotte v EUIPO — Nestlé Schöller (Representation of a koala)
   (Case T-41/17)
   (2017/C 095/25)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nestlé Schöller GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for an EU trade mark: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a koala) — Application for registration No 6 158 463

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2016 in Case R 250/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject the opposition in its entirety;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case C-503/08: Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/17

         Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-503/08)
   (2009/C 6/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2005/56/EC into national law expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005, L 310, p. 1.


title: Case T-21/99: Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Dansk Rørindustri A/S (Starpipe) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.4.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 100/19
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in           committed its error without her having at any time been
which it:                                                         aware of it; nor could she reasonably have been expected
                                                                  to have known of it.
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                  Consequently, she pleads infringement, in the present case,
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                  Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri
                                                                  A/S (Starpipe) against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 January 1999 by Marie-Jeanne                                          Communities
Kraus against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                      (Case T-21/99)
                       (Case T-14/99)                                                    (1999/C 100/38)
                      (1999/C 100/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European                      An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January                Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
1999 by Marie-Jeanne Kraus, residing in Luxembourg,               1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri A/S (Starpipe), Fredericia,
represented by Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar, with           represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen and Katja Hùegh,
an address for service at his Chambers, 10 Rue Willy              of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in
Goergen, Luxembourg.                                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                  Rue
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the decisions requiring the applicant to repay
    the household allowance received by her during the
    period from November 1986 to February 1998;                   Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(1998) 3117
                                                                      of 21 October 1998 (1), to the extent to which it
                                                                      concerns the applicant, in so far as it finds that the
Ð alternatively, annul the decisions requiring the                    applicant participated in a complex of agreements and
    applicant to repay the household allowance received               concerted practices' which lasted without interruption
    by her during the period from November 1986 to                    from about November/December 1990 to at least
    October 1995;                                                     March or April 1996';
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  Ð annul, in relation to the applicant, the final indent in
                                                                      Article 1 of the Commission Decision, which states
                                                                      that the applicant, in conjunction with the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   producers, in order to protect the cartel from
                                                                      competition from the only substantial non-member,
                                                                      Powerpipe AB (agreed) and (took) concerted measures
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision            to hinder its commercial activity, damage its business
to recover the sum of LUF 793 292 allegedly paid to her               or drive it out of the market altogether';
in error by way of household allowance during the period
from her entry into service in November 1986 to February
1998.
                                                                  Ð reduce the fine imposed on Dansk Rùrindustri A/S;
The applicant denies that she was aware of the irregularity
of the payments in issue, and further denies that they were       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of Dansk
manifestly irregular. In her view, the administration                 Rùrindustri A/S.
 ---pagebreak--- C 100/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.4.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  The applicant further submits that the Decision infringes
                                                                    procedural and substantive requirements, including the
                                                                    principle of equal treatment, which must be complied with
                                                                    when a fine is imposed under Regulation No 17.
A fine of ECU 1 475 000 was imposed on Dansk
Rùrindustri A/S (hereinafter Starpipe') by Article 3(c) of         (1) Commission Decision 99/60/EC relating to a proceeding under
the contested Commission Decision. The fine was imposed                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: Ð Pre-
primarily on the ground that Starpipe, together with a                  Insulated Pipe Cartel), (OJ L 24, 30.1.1999, p. 1).
number of other participants in the so-called pipe cartel',
participated in a complex of agreements and concerted
practices in the pre-insulated pipes sector which originated
in about November/December 1990 among the four
Danish producers, was subsequently extended to other
national markets and . . . by late 1994 consisted of a
comprehensive cartel covering the whole of the common
market', which, so far as Starpipe is concerned, is deemed
to have lasted until at least March or April 1996'.                Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Gustave Rose
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-22/99)
The applicant acknowledges that it infringed Article 85 of                                  (1999/C 100/39)
the Treaty in so far as the Decision states that the
producers divided national markets on the basis of quotas,
but not in so far as it states that the producers also
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
eventually divided up the European market among
themselves. The applicant further acknowledges the
infringement confirmed in the Decision in so far as it is
stated that the producers allocated national markets to
                                                                    An action against the Commission of European
particular producers and arranged the withdrawal of other
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
producers, agreed on prices, and ensured allocation of
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
individual projects to designated producers by
                                                                    1999 by Gustave Rose, residing at Goutroux (Belgium),
manipulating the bidding procedure for those projects.
                                                                    represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6
                                                                    Rue Heinrich Heine.
So far as the temporal and geographical scope of the
acknowledged infringement is concerned, the applicant
can admit only that it participated in the operation of the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
cartel relating to the Danish market during the period
from November/December 1990 to mid-1993, in limited
anti-competitive activities on the German market, and in            Ð annul the express decision made on 9 October 1998
one single instance on the Italian market, after which                   (and notified on 20 October 1998), rejecting the
Starpipe's involvement in the operation of the cartel                    complaint submitted by the applicant to the
ceased entirely for one year before subsequently resuming                appointing authority on 2 June 1998 by which he
in the late summer of 1994.                                              contested the decision not to promote him to grade C 1
                                                                         in the 1998 promotions procedure (decision published
                                                                         in Administrative Notices No 1036 of a 6 April 1998);
The applicant denies that it participated in concerted
measures to protect the cartel against competition from             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
the only significant outside competitor, Powerpipe AB.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
In support of the forms of order which it seeks, the
applicant submits that the Decision is contrary to
Article 85 of the EC Treaty and to Articles 3 and 15 of
Council Regulation No 17 inasmuch as it contains a                  The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the rules
misapplication of the law and an inaccurate assessment of           contained in the Practical Guide to the Procedure for the
the evidence so far as the parts of the Decision referred to        Promotion of Officials of the Commission of the European
in the first and second forms of order sought are                   Communities', as well as breach of the principles of non-
concerned.                                                          discrimination (Article 5 of the Staff Regulations) and the


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-438/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Deutscher Handballbund eV v Maros Kolpak (External relations — Association Agreement between the Communities and Slovakia — Article 38(1) — Free movement of workers — Principle of non-discrimination — Handball — Limitation on the number of professional players having the nationality of non-member countries who may play on a team in the league of a sports federation)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 146/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 8 May 2003
                                                                                of 8 May 2003
in Case C-438/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Deutscher Handballbund
                       eV v Maros Kolpak ( 1)                                in Case C-15/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Regeringsrätten ): Paranova Läkemedel AB and Others
(External relations — Association Agreement between the                                            v Läkemedelsverket (1)
Communities and Slovakia — Article 38(1) — Free move-
ment of workers — Principle of non-discrimination —
Handball — Limitation on the number of professional                          (Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —
players having the nationality of non-member countries who                   Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
    may play on a team in the league of a sports federation)                 in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
                                                                             the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that
                           (2003/C 146/07)                                                               authorisation)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/08)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: Swedish)
In Case C-438/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
by the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany) for a preliminary                                        in the European Court Reports)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Deutscher Handballbund eV and Maros Kolpak, on the
interpretation of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak                In Case C-15/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Republic, of the other part, approved on behalf of the                       by the Regeringsträtten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
Communities by Decision 94/909/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of the                     the proceedings pending before that court between Paranova
Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994                      Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum AB, Net Pharma
L 359, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                        KG AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical AB, Cross Pharma
D. A. O. Edward, acting for the President of the Chamber,                    AB, MedImport Scandinavia AB and Läkemedelsverket on the
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,               interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the Court
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal               (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric
8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                           and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
                                                                             General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
The first indent of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing       has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
an association between the European Communities and their Member
States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part,
signed in Luxembourg on 4 October 1993 and approved on behalf                Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC preclude national legislation under
of the Communities by Decision 94/909/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of                  which the withdrawal, at the request of its holder, of the marketing
the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994, must be                  authorisation of reference of itself entails the withdrawal of the
construed as precluding the application to a professional sportsman          parallel import licence granted for the medicinal product in question.
of Slovak nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established        However, those provisions do not preclude restrictions on parallel
in a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation in that         imports of the medicinal product in question if there is in fact a risk
State under which clubs are authorised to field, during league or cup        to the health of humans as a result of the continued existence of that
matches, only a limited number of players from non-member                    medicinal product on the market of the importing Member State.
countries that are not parties to the Agreement on the European
Economic Area.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
( 1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Case T-825/14: Action brought on 18 December 2014  — IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/45

         Action brought on 18 December 2014 — IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors
   (Case T-825/14)
   (2015/C 065/62)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: F. Tedeschini, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the European Commission’s Debit Note No 3 241 411 395 of 30 September 2014 in which IREPA was asked to pay the sum of EUR 4 58  347,35 to the European Commission’s bank account by 7 November 2014;

               —

               Annul the European Commission’s note Ref. Ares (2013) 2 644 562 of 12 July 2013 and the attached report from the European Court of Auditors of 27 February 2013, containing a pre-information letter preceding a recovery order in connection with the Italian Data Collection Programme for 2010;

               —

               Annul the European Commission’s note Ref. Ares (2014) of 6 August 2014, containing a second pre-information letter preceding a recovery order in connection with the Italian Data Collection Programme for 2010.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against the Commission’s objections, based on the Court of Auditors’ deductions, concerning the legitimacy of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with staff and external assistance for the Italian National Fisheries Data Collection Programme (2010), as a result of which the request for repayment of either the EU quota or the national quota was issued.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, regarding the objection relating to ‘Staff costs’, alleging infringement and incorrect application of: (i) Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data; (ii) Article 16 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts; and (iii) the principle of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The applicant argues, in that regard, that the request for repayment of the sums relating to ‘Staff costs’ is not valid, because the general and abstract content of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 is to be interpreted in the light of the specific rules for the implementation of the National Programme.

                           —

                           It also maintains that the European Commission approved the specific rules of the National Programme in the 2009 budget, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding the validity of those rules for 2010.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the objection regarding the lack of recourse to a tendering procedure for allocating assignments for the collection of data using questionnaires is also invalid, as Article 16(e) of Directive 2004/18/EC excludes ‘employment contracts’ from the scope of the provisions relating to award procedures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, regarding ‘Costs of external assistance’, alleging infringement and incorrect application of: (i) Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008; (ii) Article 16 of Directive 2004/18/EC; (iii) Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy; and (iv) the principle of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The applicant argues, in that regard, that the complaint regarding the lack of recourse to a selection procedure for allocating the assignment to the company Studio Nouvelle S.r.l. is in breach of Article 16(f) of Directive 2004/18/EC, which excludes the services in question from the scope of the rules on public procurement. In any event, IREPA carried out a pro-competitive procedure by extending invitations to five operators in accordance with the principles underlying public tendering procedures.

                           —

                           It also maintains that the objection that there is a lack of data regarding the controls carried out in relation to the service provided by Studio Nouvelle S.r.l. is invalid as it infringes Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, which does not identify any specific rules relating to controls, such rules being instead indicated in the National Plan which was approved by the European Commission, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding the validity of those rules.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the contested inclusion, in the request for repayment, of expenses which the State had not yet actually incurred is invalid, as the sums reported had been imputed to the 2009/2010 National Programme in accordance with Articles 7, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 and the Commission had approved that type of reporting in respect of the documentation relating to the 2008 programme, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding payment.


title: Case T-501/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2007 — Bodegas Franco-Españolas v OHIM — Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro (ROYAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ROYAL — Earlier Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2007 — Bodegas Franco-Españolas v OHIM — Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro (ROYAL)
   (Case T-501/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ROYAL - Earlier Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 82/78)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Franco-Españolas, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: E. López Camba, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro, SA (Real Companhia Velha) (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro, SA (Real Companhia Velha) and Bodegas Franco-Españolas, SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005.


title: Case C-270/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission (Appeal — Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to finance screening tests of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in bovine animals — Selective advantage — Decision declaring that aid incompatible in part with the internal market)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/22

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Kingdom of Belgium v European Commission
   (Case C-270/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to finance screening tests of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in bovine animals - Selective advantage - Decision declaring that aid incompatible in part with the internal market))
   (2016/C 335/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case C-133/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF) v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV, MIC Operations BV (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Applicable law in the absence of choice — Charter-party — Connecting criteria — Separability)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF) v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV, MIC Operations BV
   (Case C-133/08) (1)

   (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Applicable law in the absence of choice - Charter-party - Connecting criteria - Separability)
   2009/C 282/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF)

      Defendant: Balkenende Oosthuizen BV, MIC Operations BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 4 of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 — Concept of a contract for the carriage of goods — Constituent elements — Voyage charter party — Applicable law in the absence of choice — Connecting criteria

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The last sentence of Article 4(4) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that the connecting criterion provided for in the second sentence of Article 4(4) applies to a charter-party, other than a single voyage charter-party, only when the main purpose of the contract is not merely to make available a means of transport, but the actual carriage of goods.

               2.

               The second sentence of Article 4(1) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a part of a contract may be governed by a law other than that applied to the rest of the contract only where the object of that part is independent.
               Where the connecting criterion applied to a charter-party is that set out in Article 4(4) of the Convention, that criterion must be applied to the whole of the contract, unless the part of the contract relating to carriage is independent of the rest of the contract.

               3.

               Article 4(5) of the Convention must be construed as meaning that, where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that determined on the basis of one of the criteria set out in Article 4(2) to (4) of the Convention, it is for the court to disregard those criteria and apply the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.06.2008.


title: Action brought on 27 March 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-102/96)

text:
No C 158/4                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
      exploitation of copyright vis-à-vis the other Member                       criterion for ascertaining whether there is a pronounced
      States of the European Union ?                                             sexual odour; that leads to the systematic rejection of
                                                                                imports from Denmark, where testing is done by the
C ) Società Italiana Autori ed Editori — Italian Society of Authors              ' scatol ' method recognized by the competent authorities
     and Publishers .                                                            there . The German authorities wrongly invoke
                                                                                Article 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Directive, since the German
                                                                                practice is not directed to control by spot checks of
                                                                                compliance with the Community rules but to the
                                                                                systematic enforcement of a method which is recognized
                                                                                by Germany as the only reliable one .
                                                                            — Infringement of the conditions under Community law
Action brought on 27 March 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                                for a declaration of unfitness for consumption under
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Article 5 of Directive 64/433/EEC as amended by
                                  Germany
                                                                                Directive 91 /497/EEC : In the framework of control by
                             ( Case C- 1 02/96 )                                 spot checks, the country of destination may indeed apply
                               ( 96/C 158 /07 )                                  a suitable method of its own choice, but it is not entitled
                                                                                on that basis to deny the fitness for consumption of all
                                                                                consignments of meat which have been found to be fit
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            for consumption in the country of origin . That would
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              not be compatible with the principle of the internal
Communities on 27 March 1996 by the Commission of the                            market, nor with Article 8 of Directive 89/662/EEC,
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                                which provides for a sort of arbitration procedure in
Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                  which the Commission plays a decisive part.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        That procedure has already led, with respect to the
                                                                                ' scatol' method applied in Denmark , whose reliability
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                     was also doubted by France, to a confirmation of that
                                                                                method; unlike the French authorities, the German
 1 , declare that, by imposing the special obligation of                         authorities refuse to respect that result.
      marking and subjecting to heat treatment under
      Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Directive 64/433/EEC ( ! ) the carcases      — Breach of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: The German
      of uncastrated male pigs if the meat, regardless of the                    Federal Government wrongly invokes compelling
      carcase weight, has an androstenone content of more                         reasons of consumer protection . The requirements with
      than 0,5 ^ig/g, applying Professor Claus's modified                        respect to the production and placing on the market of
      immunoenzyme test,                                                          fresh meat for human consumption have been fully
                                                                                harmonized by Directives 64/433/EEC ( as amended
                                                                                by Directive " 91 /497/EEC ) and 89/662/EEC . The
      and by regarding the meat as giving off a pronounced
      sexual odour and consequently unfit for human                               declaration on the problem of boar's meat made by the
                                                                                Council and Commission when Directive 91 /497/EEC
      consumption under Article 5 ( 1 ) ( o ) of Directive
                                                                                was adopted has merely a clarifying function and cannot
      64/433/EEC if the threshold of 0,5 juig/g of androstenone
      is exceeded,
                                                                                be interpreted in a way which is incompatible with the
                                                                                wording of the Directive .
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) and Article 5 ( 1 ) ( o )     (') OJ , English Special Edition 1963-1964 , p . 185 .
                                                                            C-) OJ No L 268 , 1991 , p . 69 .
      of Directive 64/433/EEC as amended by Directive                       (■') OJ No L 395 , 1989 , p . 13 .
      91 /497/EEC ( 2 ) in conjunction with Articles 5 ( 1 ), 7
      and 8 of Directive 89/662/EEC ( 3 ) and under Article 30
      of the EC Treaty;
 2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                            d'Instance, Lille, by judgment of that court of 19 March
                                                                            1996 in the case of Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits
 — Infringement of the conditions under Community law                                       Indirects v. Eridania Béghin-Say SA
      for imposing a special obligation of marking and heat                                            ( Case C-103/96 )
      treatment under Article 6 of Directive 64/433/EEC as
      amended by Directive 91 /497/EEC : The German                                                      ( 96/C 158/08 )
      authorities' requirement of marking and subjecting to
      heat treatment if appropriate even carcases of less than              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      80 kilograms is clearly contrary to Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
      Directive . Also contrary to that provision is the                    d'Instance ( District Court ), Lille , of 19 March 1996 , which
      unilateral determination of a specified test as the                   was received at the Court Registry on 28 March 1996 , for a


title: Case T-347/16: Order of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Inox Mare v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs Union — Commission decision finding that the repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case — Action brought by a separate operator — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/22

         Order of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Inox Mare v Commission
   (Case T-347/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Customs Union - Commission decision finding that the repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case - Action brought by a separate operator - No direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 269/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Inox Mare Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 9672 final of 6 January 2016 finding that the repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/14).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Inox Mare Srl shall bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 March 1996 in Case T-361/94: Henry A. Weir v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Partial permanent invalidity - Equality of treatment - Change in purchasing power - Delay in dealing with a matter - Default interest - Admissibility)

text:
No C 108/ 10          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 4 . 96
Currall ) — application for the annulment of the decision of            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Commission of 18 January 1994, inasmuch as it does                                   of 15 February 1996
not reimburse to the applicant the full difference between
the medical expenses incurred by him for a dependent                in Case T-5/95 : Amicale des Résidents du Square
child and the amounts payable under the joint sickness                      d'Auvergne v. Commission of the European
insurance scheme — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth                                      Communitiesf 1 )
Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen, President, and                (Competition — Action for annulment — Action for failure
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung,                to act — Action for damages — Application for directions to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 19 96 , in               be issued to the Commission — Admissibility — No need to
which it :                                                                                give a decision)
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/22 )
1 , dismisses the application -,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                  In Case T- 5/95 : Amicale des Résidents du Square
                                                                    d'Auvergne, established in Massy, France, represented by
                                                                    Jean-Marc Florand, of the Paris Bar, v . Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and
                                                                    Wouter Wils ) — application for ( 1 ) a declaration that the
                                                                    Commission has failed to act and an order directing it to
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            continue its investigation of a complaint; (2 ) the annulment
                      of 12 March 1996                              of the Commission's decisions contained in its letters to the
in Case T-361 /94 : Henry A. Weir v. Commission of the              applicant of 20 September 1994, 5 October 1994 and
                  European Communities ( 1 )                        26 October 1994 , and ( 3 ) an order that the Commission pay
                                                                    ECU 10 million by way of damages — the Court of First
(Officials — Partial permanent invalidity — Equality of             Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
treatment — Change in purchasing power — Delay                      President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos , Judges;
in dealing with a matter — Default interest —                       H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 1 5 February 1 996 ,
                         Admissibility)                             in which it orders :
                          96/C 108 /21 )
                                                                    I . there is no need to give a decision on the claim for failure
               (Language of the case: German)                           to act;
In Case T-361 /94 : Henry A. Weir, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                 2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed as
                                                                        inadmissible;
Glasgow ( United Kingdom ), represented by Hans-Josef
Ruber, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue            3 , the parties shall bear their own costs, including the costs
Mathias Hardt, v . Commission of the European                           of the proceedings for interim measures.
Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Bertrand
Wàgenbaur ) — application, first, for the annulment of the          (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
decision of the Commission of 25 February 1994, adopted
pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials of
the European Communities, alternatively an award of
compensatory interest, and, second, an award of default
interest — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
on 12 March 1996 , in which it:                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 February 1996
 1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible, inasmuch as it      in Case T-235/95 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
     seeks directions to the Commission and an order
                                                                                the European Communities
     requiring the Commission to pay compensatory
     interest;
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/23 )
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                  (Language of the case: English)
     unfounded;
                                                                    In Case T-235/95 R : Anthony Goldstein a medical
3 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     practitioner residing in London, represented by Raymond
                                                                    St John Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the
 O OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities ( Agent: Richard Lyal ) —
                                                                    application for an interlocutory order for interim measures
                                                                    — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order


title: Case T-246/99: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2007 — Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission (State Aid — Maritime transport — Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC — New State aid — Existing State aid)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2007 — Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission
   (Case T-246/99) (1)

   (State Aid - Maritime transport - Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC - New State aid - Existing State aid)
   (2007/C 183/60)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA, formerly Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and Adriatica di Navigazione SpA (Naples, Italy); Caremar SpA (Naples); Toremar SpA (Leghorn, Italy); Siremar SpA (Palermo, Italy); and Saremar SpA (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: initially A. Tizzano and G. Roberti and subsequently G. Roberti, A. Franchi and G. Bellitti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, V. Di Bucci and E. De Persio, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA (Naples) (represented by: S. Ravenna and A. Abate, lawyers); Aliscafi Società Navigazione Alta Velocità SpA (Aliscafi SNAV) (Messina, Italy) (represented by: B. Castaldo and C. Forte, lawyers); Traghetti Pozzuoli Srl (Naples); Alilauro SpA (Naples); and Linee Lauro Srl (Pozzuoli, Italy) (represented by: E. Amato, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 6 August 1999 to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC concerning the State aid granted by the Italian Republic to undertakings in the Tirrenia di Navigazione group (OJ 1999 C 306, p. 2).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission and the interveners Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA, Linee Lauro Srl, Traghetti Pozzuoli Srl and Alilauro SpA;

               3.

               Orders the intervener Aliscafi Società Navigazione Alta Velocità SpA (Aliscafi SNAV) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 22.1.2000.