title: Case C-14/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 January 2009 — Hava Genc v Land Berlin

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 January 2009 — Hava Genc v Land Berlin
   (Case C-14/09)
   2009/C 102/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hava Genc

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a Turkish national who is duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State and who has, for an extended period for and under the instruction of another, performed services of a certain economic value in return for which he receives remuneration a ‘worker’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council, even if the time spent in that activity amounts to only approximately 14% of the collectively agreed working time of a full-time worker (in the present case, 5.5 hours as against a 39-hour working week) and the income earned from that activity by itself covers only approximately 25% of the amount determined under the national law of the Member State to be necessary for subsistence (in the present case, approximately EUR 175 as against approximately EUR 715)?
               If the answer to the first question is affirmative:

               2.

               Can a Turkish national then also rely on the freedom of movement under the EEC/Turkey Association as a worker within the terms of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 if the purpose of the stay for which he entered the country is no longer applicable (in the present case, joining a spouse for the purpose of family reunification), if there are no other interests for remaining in the contracting State which merit protection, and if the possibility of continuing to engage in a minimal activity in the contracting State cannot be regarded as constituting a ground for remaining there, in particular because no serious efforts have been made by that Turkish national to achieve stable economic integration without reliance on social benefits to ensure the means of subsistence?


title: Case T-108/17: Action brought on 17 February 2017 — ClientEarth v Commission

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/41

         Action brought on 17 February 2017 — ClientEarth v Commission
   (Case T-108/17)
   (2017/C 121/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Jones, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the European Commission’s decision, dated 7 December 2016 (‘the Contested Decision’), refusing to review its Decision C(2016) 3549 (‘the Authorisation Decision’) granting to the undertakings VinyLoop Ferrara SpA, Stena Recycling AB, and Plastic Planet srl an authorisation for the use of a chemical known as bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1);

               —

               annul the Authorisation Decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; and

               —

               order any other measure deemed appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment regarding the alleged conformity of the application for authorisation of VinyLoop, Stena, and Plastic Planet within the meaning of Article 62 and Article 60(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and assessment under Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regarding the socio-economic assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment under Article 60(4) and 60(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regarding the analysis of alternatives.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of law and assessment regarding the application of the precautionary principle in the context of the authorisation process under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1).


title: Case C-300/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2014  — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2014 — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA
   (Case C-300/14)
   2014/C 303/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Imtech Marine Belgium NV

      Respondent: Radio Hellenic SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the non-application directly of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims constitute a breach of Article 288 (consolidated version) of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 on the functioning of the European Union, because

                           —

                           the Belgian legislature has not transposed that regulation into Belgian legislation and

                           —

                           although an opposition and an appeal are provided for in Belgian legislation, the Belgian legislature has not introduced a review procedure?

               2.

               If that is not the case, given that an (EC) regulation has direct effect, what should be understood by ‘review of [a] judgment’ in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 …? Must a review procedure be provided for only if a summons/document instituting proceedings has been served by a method provided for in Article 14 of Regulation No 805/2004 …, in other words without proof of receipt? Does Belgian legislation not offer satisfactory guarantees to satisfy the [criterion] of ‘review procedure’ provided for in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 … by providing for opposition in accordance with Article 1047 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek (Belgian Judicial Code) and an appeal in accordance with Article 1050 et seq. of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek?

               3.

               Does Article 50 of the Belgisch Gerechtelijk Wetboek, which allows the limitation periods referred to in the second paragraph of Article 860, Article 55 and Article 1048 of that code to be extended in the event of force majeure or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on the part of the person concerned offer sufficient protection for the purposes of Article 19(1)(b) of Regulation No 805/2004 …?

               4.

               Is certification as a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims a judicial measure which must be applied for in the document instituting the proceedings? If so, must the judge certify the judgment as a European Enforcement Order and must the registrar of the court issue the certificate?
               If that is not the case: can the task of certifying the judgment as a European Enforcement Order fall to a registrar?

               5.

               In the event that certification as a European Enforcement Order is not a judicial measure, may the applicant — who has not used the document instituting proceedings to apply for a European Enforcement Order — subsequently, once the judgment has become final, request the registrar to certify the judgment as a European Enforcement Order?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.


title: Case C-33/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Sugar — Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 — Calculation of the temporary restructuring amount — Inclusion of the part of the quota subject to a preventive withdrawal — Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-33/08) (1)

   (Sugar - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Calculation of the temporary restructuring amount - Inclusion of the part of the quota subject to a preventive withdrawal - Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination)
   2009/C 180/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 34 EC and, in particular, the principle of non-discrimination and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality — Interpretation and validity of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Whether the part of the quota subject to preventive withdrawal pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002 (OJ 2006 L 89, p. 11) should be included in the calculation of the temporary restructuring amount.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy must be interpreted as meaning that the part of the sugar quota allocated to an undertaking, which has been subject to a preventive withdrawal pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1542/2006 of 13 October 2006, is to be included in the basis for the calculation of the temporary amount.

               2.

               Examination of the second question has not revealed anything which might affect the validity of Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-442/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the Bundesfinanzhof of 27 September 2001 in the case of KapHag Renditefonds, 35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf, 3. Tranche GbR against Finanzamt Charlottenburg

text:
2.3.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 56/3
(the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrotisis                     have conferred on taxable persons a right to opt for
Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator, Ethniki                 taxation? Which of the transactions listed in
Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou kai Pathiti-                  Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC are involved?
kou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Georgios I. Tsamasfi-
ros and Others on the following question:
                                                                          (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
In view of the fact that Article 25 of the Second Council
Directive 77/91/EEC (1) of 13 December 1976 does not lay
down a penalty for any infringement of that article, is it
compatible with the objectives pursued by that directive for a
provision of national law to declare valid shares which have
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the
resulted from an increase, pursuant to ministerial decisions, in
                                                                          Bundesfinanzhof of 27 September 2001 in the case of
the share capital of public limited companies where the
                                                                          KapHag Renditefonds, 35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf,
increase is invalid as contrary to Article 25 of the directive,
                                                                               3. Tranche GbR against Finanzamt Charlottenburg
provided that the provision confers, in return, a right against
the State to full compensation for any harm which the pre-
existing shareholders of those public limited companies have                                       (Case C-442/01)
suffered as a consequence of the increase. In particular, may
that right to full compensation be regarded, in view inter alia                                     (2002/C 56/06)
of the long time which has since passed and the successive
increases which have followed (by decisions of the general
meeting), as equivalent, under Community law, to recognition              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
that the shares which have resulted from the invalid increase             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
in the share capital are invalid?                                         (Federal Finance Court) of 27 September 2001, which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2001, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of KapHag Renditefonds,
(1) OJ L 26 of 31.1.1977, p. 1.                                           35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf, 3. Tranche GbR v Finanzamt
                                                                          Charlottenburg on the following questions:
                                                                          1.    Where a partnership assumes a partner on payment of a
                                                                                capital contribution in cash, does it effect a supply to him
                                                                                for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                                Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)
                                                                          2.    If so, is it an incidental transaction for the purposes of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                         Article 19(2), sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, and is
hof by order of that court of 17 May 2001 in the case                           the taxable person entitled to rely on Article 19(2),
of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau against MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-                             sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, according to which
                         Factoring GmbH                                         such incidental transactions do not exclude a deduction?
                          (Case C-305/01)                                 (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
                           (2002/C 56/05)
                                                                          Action brought on 3 December 2001 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                                                lic of Germany
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 May 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 3 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                                             (Case C-463/01)
the case of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-
Factoring GmbH on the following questions:                                                          (2002/C 56/07)
1.    Can a factoring company which buys debts and assumes
      liability for the risk of loss in relation to those debts be        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      said to be using goods and services received by it for the          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      purposes of its transactions?                                       ties on 3 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
2.    Do such activities involve taxable transactions or trans-           in the Commission of the European Communities, with an
      actions (they involve the latter in any event) for the              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      purposes of Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1)              Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
      which may be taxed to the extent that the Member States             Kirchberg.


title: Case C-349/04: Action brought on 13 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/9

         Action brought on 13 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-349/04)
   (2004/C 239/17)
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to supply the Commission with all the information necessary to allow it to confirm that the provisions of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) have been complied with, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

               2.

               Order Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 9 of Directive 2002/77/EC requires the Member States to supply the Commission, no later than 24 July 2003, with information allowing it to confirm that the provisions of that directive have been complied with.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).


title: Case C-23/17 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2017 by For Tune sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2016 in Case T-579/15: For Tune sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/16

         Appeal brought on 18 January 2017 by For Tune sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2016 in Case T-579/15: For Tune sp. z o.o. v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-23/17 P)
   (2017/C 249/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: For Tune sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Popławska, adwokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 15 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-596/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social (Spain) lodged on 22 December 2014  — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social (Spain) lodged on 22 December 2014 — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa
   (Case C-596/14)
   (2015/C 096/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ana de Diego Porras

      Defendant: Ministerio de Defensa

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the compensation due on termination of a temporary contract covered by the employment conditions to which Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP refers (1)?

               2.

               If such compensation is covered by the employment conditions, must workers with an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions, such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or service, or the occurrence of a specific event, receive, on termination of the contract, the same compensation as that to which a comparable permanent worker is entitled when his contract is terminated for objective reasons?

               3.

               If a temporary worker is entitled to receive the same compensation as a permanent worker on termination of the contract for objective reasons, must Article 49(1)(c) of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) be regarded as having correctly transposed Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, or is it discriminatory and contrary to that directive in that it undermines its purpose and its effectiveness?

               4.

               If there are no objective reasons for excluding temporary replacement workers from the entitlement to receive compensation on termination of a temporary contract, is the distinction which the Worker’s Statute establishes between the employment conditions of those workers discriminatory, compared not only with the conditions of permanent workers but also with those of other temporary workers?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-512/04 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2004 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 6 October 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-356/02 between Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), supported by Krafft SA

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/18

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2004 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 6 October 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-356/02 between Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), supported by Krafft SA
   (Case C-512/04 P)
   (2005/C 45/33)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 October 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-356/02 between Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), supported by Krafft SA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 December 2004 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, represented by Dr Ulrich Sander, Eisenführ, Speiser & Partner, Martinistrasse 24, D-28195 Bremen.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   Set aside the judgment delivered on 6 October 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-356/02, 1 in so far as the decision was to the appellant's detriment.
   Pleas and main arguments
   The question to be decided in the present case is that of the likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark. The Court of First Instance found that there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the Spanish public between the marks ‘KRAFFT’ (Spanish national marks) cited in opposition and ‘VITAKRAFT’, the Community trade mark applied for. The Court of First Instance expressly based its decision on its own earlier decision in Case T-6/01 Matratzen Concord v OHIM – Hukla Germany (MATRATZEN) (upheld by order of the Court of Justice on 28 April 2004 in Case 3/03 P). However, in the appellant's view, that case concerned an entirely different situation and cannot be compared to the present case. The Matratzen case concerned a (conflicting) mark composed of three separate words, ‘Matratzen Markt Concord’, which in the view of the Court of First Instance was likely to be confused (also by the Spanish public) with the Spanish national mark ‘MATRATZEN’, the distinguishing element in the case being that the earlier Spanish mark ‘MATRATZEN’ was registered for the goods ‘mattresses’; the German word ‘Matratzen’ (mattresses) was therefore monopolised in Spain as a mark, because the German clearly was not perceived as descriptive by the Spanish consumer. According to the appellant, however, such trade mark rights should, in a harmonised Europe, be granted only restricted protection in opposition proceedings against an application for a Community trade mark and, therefore, the appellant, first of all, fundmentally challenges the bias of the approach taken in the ‘MATRATZEN’ decision.
   Furthermore, the appellant sets out the differences between the marks cited in opposition in the present case and those in the ‘MATRATZEN’ case, since in the case of the application for the Community trade mark ‘VITAKRAFT’ the Spanish consumer would have to separate, mentally or in terms of the typography or of the sound, the prefix ‘VITA’ from the whole mark ‘VITAKRAFT’ and there is no clear reason why this should be done. Finally, the appellant considers the problems for the free movement of goods which might conceivably arise if the bias of the ‘MATRATZEN’ decision is not properly adjusted.


title: Case C-35/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/21/EC — Protection of the environment — Waste management — Mining extraction — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/16

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-35/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/21/EC - Protection of the environment - Waste management - Mining extraction - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 246/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Menez, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.


title: Case T-541/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/56

         Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)
   (Case T-541/14)
   2014/C 303/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl (Salice Salentino, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicente Gandía Pla SA (Chiva, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2014 given in Case R 917/2013-4;

               —

               Award the applicant the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘ILLIRIA’ for ‘wines’ in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 99  033

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No. 8 2 99  653

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulled the contested decision and upheld the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-343/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — CN v Parliament (Non-contractual liability — Petition addressed to the Parliament — Dissemination on the Parliament website of certain personal data — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — CN v Parliament
   (Case T-343/13) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Petition addressed to the Parliament - Dissemination on the Parliament website of certain personal data - No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))
   (2016/C 027/37)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CN (Brumath, France) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by A. Buchta and V. Pozzato, then by A. Buchta, M. Pérez Asinari, F. Polverino, M. Guglielmetti and U. Kallenberger, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the dissemination on the Parliament website of certain personal data relating to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CN to pay the costs of the European Parliament and to bear his own costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Case F-22/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — ZZ v CPVO

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/50

         Action brought on 29 April 2016 — ZZ v CPVO
   (Case F-22/16)
   (2016/C 251/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract and an application seeking that she be awarded compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the AECE of 24 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract beyond 31 December 2015;

               —

               annul the AECE’s decision of 20 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 15 September 2015 against that decision;

               —

               pay compensation for the material harm suffered as a result of the above, evaluated provisionally, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 119 767;

               —

               award the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-328/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the criminal proceedings against Attila Vajnai

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) by order of that court of 24 June 2004 in the criminal proceedings against Attila Vajnai
   (Case C-328/04)
   (2004/C 262/27)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Fővárosi Bíróság, Hungary, of 24 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 30 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Attila Vajnai on the following question:
   Is Article 269/B, first paragraph, of the Büntető Törvénykönyv (Hungarian Criminal Code), which provides that a person who uses or displays, in public, the symbol consisting of a five-pointed red star commits — where the conduct does not amount to a more serious criminal offence — a minor offence, compatible with the fundamental Community-law principle of non-discrimination? Do Article 6 TEU, according to which the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, Directive 2000/43/EC (1), which also refers to fundamental freedoms, and Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, allow a person who wishes to express his political convictions through a symbol representing them to do so in any Member State?

      (1)  OJ L 180, p. 22.


title: Case T-346/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — EAGGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development measures — Agri-environment — Adequate checks — Lump-sum financial corrections)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-346/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development measures - Agri-environment - Adequate checks - Lump-sum financial corrections))
   (2015/C 346/25)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented initially by: I.-K. Chalkias, X. Basakou and A.-E. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by: A.-E. Vasilopoulou, G. Kanellopoulos and O. Tsirkinidou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD, in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 2 % on the Hellenic Republic) in respect of the ‘Organic farming’ and ‘Organic livestock’ agri-environment sub-measures;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Case F-64/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Nijs v European Court of Auditors (Staff case — Officials — Article 35(1(e) of the Rules of Procedure — Summary statement in application of pleas in law — Staff reporting procedure — Designation of reporting officer and countersigning officer — No act adversely affecting the applicant — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/74

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Nijs v European Court of Auditors
   (Case F-64/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Article 35(1(e) of the Rules of Procedure - Summary statement in application of pleas in law - Staff reporting procedure - Designation of reporting officer and countersigning officer - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Manifestly inadmissible)
   (2009/C 44/130)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M Stenier and G. Corstens, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the European Court of Auditors designating the applicant's reporting officer and countersigning officer and application for compensation for damage suffered as a result of that decision
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Nijs is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 27.9.2008, p. 25.


title: Case C-528/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 — Railway infrastructure capacity and charges levied for the use of railway infrastructure — Regulatory body — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-528/10) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 - Railway infrastructure capacity and charges levied for the use of railway infrastructure - Regulatory body - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2013/C 9/08
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller and by J. Očková, acting as Agents)
   Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 6(2) and (5) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures, inter alia so far as concerns the units in which charges are levied for the use of infrastructure in the railways sector, to which Articles 6(2) to (5) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, relate, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-191/98 P: Georges Tzoanos v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Dismissal of application for annulment of a decision ordering removal from post — Concurrent disciplinary and criminal proceedings (Fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations))

text:
19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 47/7
within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their                                 of 18 November 1999
families moving within the Community, as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.                              in Case C-200/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Regeringsrätten): X AB and Y AB v Riksskatteverket (1)
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                  (Freedom of establishment — Payment made by a Swedish
                                                                           company to its subsidiary — Exemption from corporation
                                                                                tax)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                           In Case C-200/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                      of 18 November 1999                                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Regeringsrätten
                                                                           (Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between X
in Case C-191/98 P: Georges Tzoanos v Commission of                        AB, Y AB and Riksskatteverket — on the interpretation of
                 the European Communities (1)                              Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
                                                                           EC), Article 53 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of
(Appeal — Dismissal of application for annulment of a                      Amsterdam), Article 54 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
decision ordering removal from post — Concurrent disciplin-                ment, Article 44 EC), Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now
ary and criminal proceedings (Fifth paragraph of Article 88                Article 45 EC), Articles 56 and 57 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                     of the Staff Regulations))                            amendment, Articles 46 EC and 47 EC) and Articles 58, 73b
                                                                           and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 48 EC, 56 EC and 58
                           (2000/C 47/11)                                  EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
                                                                           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
                                                                           teur), L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
                    (Language of the case: French)                         mann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Sag-
                                                                           gio, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
                                                                           the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 1999, in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     which it has ruled:
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Where a Member State grants certain tax relief in respect of
                                                                           intra-group transfers made between two public limited companies
In Case C-191/98 P: Georges Tzoanos, a former official of the              established in that Member State and the second of those companies
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Athens                 is wholly owned by the first, either directly or together with
(Greece), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           — one or more subsidiaries which are themselves established in that
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L.
                                                                                Member State and which it owns entirely, or
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of                — one or more subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which have
19 March 1998 in Case T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission                              their seats in another Member State with which the first Member
[1998] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-343, seeking to have that                          State has concluded an agreement for the prevention of double
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                    taxation which contains a non-discrimination clause,
Commission of the European Communities, (Agent: G. Valses-                 Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC),
ia, with D. Waelbroeck and O. Speltdoorn) — the Court                      Article 53 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam),
(First Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                  Article 54 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 44 EC),
President of the Fifth Chamber, acting as President of the First           Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 EC), Articles 56 and
Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate               57 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 47
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 Nov-              EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude
ember 1999, in which it:                                                   that tax relief from being refused in respect of transfers made between
                                                                           two public limited companies established in that Member State,
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                   where the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first
                                                                           together with several subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which
2. Orders Mr Tzoanos to pay the costs of this appeal.                      have their seat in various other Member States with which the first
                                                                           Member State has concluded agreements for the prevention of double
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 taxation which contain a non-discrimination clause.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: Case C-667/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa — Portugal) — Estado português v Banco Privado Português SA, in liquidation, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — State guarantee underwriting a loan — Decision 2011/346/EU — Questions concerning validity — Admissibility — Article 107(1) TFEU — Statement of reasons — Effect on trade between Member States — Article 107(3)(b) TFEU — Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa — Portugal) — Estado português v Banco Privado Português SA, in liquidation, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA
   (Case C-667/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - State guarantee underwriting a loan - Decision 2011/346/EU - Questions concerning validity - Admissibility - Article 107(1) TFEU - Statement of reasons - Effect on trade between Member States - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State))
   (2015/C 138/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Estado português

      Defendants: Banco Privado Português SA, in liquidation, Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal do Comércio de Lisboa (Portugal) has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Decision 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to BPP.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case T-602/15: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Jenkinson v Council and Others (Arbitration clause — EU international mission personnel — Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts — Claim for compensation — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/34

         Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Jenkinson v Council and Others
   (Case T-602/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - EU international mission personnel - Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts - Claim for compensation - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 014/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Liam Jenkinson (Killarney, Ireland) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, E. Chaboureau and G. Pasqualetti, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (represented by: D. Fouquet and E. Raoult, lawyers)

      Subject matter of the proceedings

   Principally, an application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, to have the applicant’s contractual relationship reclassified as an employment contract of indeterminate duration and to obtain compensation for the loss that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts and an unfair dismissal, and, on the other hand, a declaration that the Council, the Commission and EEAS discriminated against the applicant and an order requiring them to pay compensation to the applicant, and, in the alternative, a claim based on the non-contractual liability of the European institutions.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The action is dismissed.

               2)

               Liam Jenkinson is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case C-110/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — Solvay SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market in soda ash in the Community — Concerted practice — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Access to the file — Hearing of the undertaking)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/13

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 — Solvay SA v European Commission
   (Case C-110/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Market in soda ash in the Community - Concerted practice - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Access to the file - Hearing of the undertaking)
   2011/C 370/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Solvay SA (represented by: P. Foriers, R. Jafferali, F. Louis and A. Vallery, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocate)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 in Case T-58/01 Solvay v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the appellants application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] — Competition — Soda ash market in the Community — Agreement — Infringement of the right to be tried within reasonable time — Infringement of the rights of the defence

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2009 in Case T-58/01 Solvay v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/5/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/33.133-B: Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK);

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case T-263/03: Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
29.11.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/25
3.    Reserves the costs.                                                  Th. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer. The additional party before
                                                                           the Board of Appeal was Conceria Toska S.R.L., Milan (Italy).
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     defendant of 13 May 2003 (Case R 369/2002-2);
                             INSTANCE
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                      of 16 September 2003
in Case T-272/03 R: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez v
        Commission of the European Communities                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(Interim measures — Application for suspension of oper-
                    ation — Urgency — None)                                Applicant for Com-            Conceria Toska S.R.L.
                                                                           munity trade mark:
                          (2003/C 289/53)
                                                                           Community trade mark          Word mark TOSKA for goods
                                                                           sought:                       in Class 18 (including bags) —
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                       application No 743427
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         Applicant
In Case T-272/03 R: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing                sign cited in the oppo-
in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Iturriagagoititia and             sition:
K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and                Mark or sign cited in         German word mark TOSCA for
H. Tserepa- Lacombe) — application for suspension of the                   opposition:                   perfumes (including ‘parfum’, ‘eau
operation of the Commission’s decision of 12 May 2003                                                    de toilette’, and ‘eau de parfum
rejecting the application to renew the applicant’s temporary                                             pour femmes’)
staff contract, the President made an order on 16 September
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                           Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                           sition Division:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 —    The opposition based on the
                                                                                mark with reputation is well
                                                                                founded       pursuant      to
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94 (1).
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Mülhens GmbH & Co.                                                     —    There is a likelihood of con-
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                       fusion between the opposing
         Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                marks.
                           (Case T-263/03)                                                               —    There are certain similarities
                                                                                between the         opposing
                                                                                goods.
                          (2003/C 289/54)
                                                                                —    The earlier mark is a mark
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                             with reputation within the
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was                                             meaning of Article 8(5) of
                          submitted: German)                                                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 July 2003 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, represented by


title: Case T-93/10: Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes e.a. v ECHA

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/63

         Action brought on 17 February 2010 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes e.a. v ECHA
   (Case T-93/10)
   2010/C 113/95
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Spain), Cindu Chemicals BV (Uithoorn, The Netherlands), Deza a.s. (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic), Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain), Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark), Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom), Rütgers Germany GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany), Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium) and Rütgers Poland Sp. Z o.o. (Kedzierzyn-Kozle, Poland), (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               partially annul the contested act, as far as it relates to pitch, coal tar, high temp., CAS Number 65996-93-2; and

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (ED/68/2009) to identify pitch, coal tar, high temp., CAS Number 65996-93-2 (‘CTPHT’) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (hereinafter ‘REACH’), in accordance with Article 59 of REACH.
   On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants’ attention by means of an ECHA press release, the substance pitch, coal tar, high temp. was included in the list of 15 new chemical substances of the Candidate list of substance of very high concern.
   In summary, the applicants do not challenge the identification of CTPHT as carcinogenic but they do challenge the identification of that substance as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic and as very persistent and very bioaccumulative in accordance with the criteria set out in Annex XIII to REACH.
   In addition, the applicants claim that the inclusion of pitch, coal tar, high temp. on the candidate list of substances of very high concern will lead to the eventual inclusion of such substance in Annex XIV to REACH, which in turn will have several negative legal consequences for the applicants which flow directly from such identification.
   The applicants submit that the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of substances of very high concern under REACH, and of substances which are persistent, bioacculumative and toxic and very persistent and very bioaccumulative, in particular. Accordingly, the contested decision is based on an error of assessment and an error of law because the identification of pitch, coal tar, high temp. as a substance of very high concern due to the fact that it is persistent, bioacculumative and toxic and very persistent and very bioaccumulative is solely based on properties of constituent substances, which finds no legal basis in REACH.
   In addition, the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the principles of equal treatment since it discriminates between the substance in question and other comparable substances without any objective justification.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the contested act infringes the principles of proportionality since it is disproportionate in view of the choice of measures available to the defendant and the disadvantages caused in the relation to the aims pursued.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Case C-265/17 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13: United Parcel Service v European Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/21

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2017 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2017 in Case T-194/13: United Parcel Service v European Commission
   (Case C-265/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, H. Leupold, A. Biolan, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: United Parcel Service, Inc., FedEx Corp.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment;

               —

               refer the proceedings back to the General Court, and

               —

               reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1)

               The Judgment errs in finding that the Commission was required to disclose to UPS the final version of its price concentration model before adopting the Decision.

               2)

               Even if the Commission’s failure to disclose the final version of the price concentration model to UPS before the adoption of the Decision could breach UPS’s rights of defence, the Judgment erred in its characterisation of the evidential character of the price concentration model and, consequently, in the legal test applied in determining that the Decision was to be annulled.

               3)

               Even if a breach of UPS’s rights of defence could arise in the circumstances, the Judgment erred in failing to address the Commission’s submissions that UPS’s plea was ineffective and that UPS could understand the price concentration model.

               4)

               In any event, the findings made in the Judgment could not justify the annulment of the Decision.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-112/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Toshiba Europe GmbH v Katun Germany GmbH (Comparative advertising — Marketing of spare parts and consumable items — References made by a supplier of non-original spare parts and consumable items to the product numbers specific to the original spare parts and consumable items — Directive 84/450/EEC and Directive 97/55/EC)

text:
8.12.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/1
                                                                     I
                                                               (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977
                                                                         (77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                         States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                   tax: uniform basis of assessment does not exempt a supply of services
                                                                         which is made by a person who does not have any interest in the
                                                                         immovable property and which consists in the acceptance, for
                                                                         consideration, of an assignment of a lease of that property from the
                      of 9 October 2001                                  lessee.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
in Case C-108/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court)): Commissioners of
  Customs & Excise v Cantor Fitzgerald International (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for the leasing or letting                                         (Fifth Chamber)
of immovable property — Meaning — Supply of services —
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
      Third party taking over a lease for consideration)
                                                                         in Case C-112/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Toshiba Europe GmbH v
                       (2001/C 348/01)                                                        Katun Germany GmbH (1)
                                                                         (Comparative advertising — Marketing of spare parts and
                                                                         consumable items — References made by a supplier of non-
                  (Language of the case: English)                        original spare parts and consumable items to the product
                                                                         numbers specific to the original spare parts and consumable
                                                                            items — Directive 84/450/EEC and Directive 97/55/EC)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/02)
In Case C-108/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                (Language of the case: German)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
isional Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the                              in the European Court Reports)
proceedings pending before that court between Com-
missioners of Customs & Excise and Cantor Fitzgerald Inter-
national — on the interpretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth          In Case C-112/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) on the                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to               Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf) (Germany) for a
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth             court between Toshiba Europe GmbH and Katun Germany
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,              GmbH — on the interpretation of Article 2(2a) and
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and               Article 3a(1)(c) and (g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of
R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louter-           10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a             advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive
judgment on 9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:                       97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
 ---pagebreak--- C 348/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.12.2001
6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — the Court,                          d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) for a prelimi-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,                             nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and                    between Christiane Adam, épouse Urbing and Administration
M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                 de l’enregistrement et des domaines — on the interpretation
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            of Annex F(2) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
on 25 October 2001, in which it has ruled:                                  17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                            States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
1.    On a proper construction of Articles 2(2a) and 3a(1)(c)               added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
      of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984                  — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended         President of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and
      by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the           J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
      Council of 6 October 1997, the indication, in the catalogue of        R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001,
      a supplier of spare parts and consumable items suitable for the       in which it has ruled:
      products of an equipment manufacturer, of product numbers
      (OEM numbers) by which the equipment manufacturer desig-              It is for each Member State to determine and define the transactions
      nates the spare parts and consumable items which he himself           to which may be applied a reduced rate under Article 12(4) of the
      sells may constitute comparative advertising which objectively        Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
      compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and represen-     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      tative features of goods.                                             taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
2.    On a proper construction of Article 3a(1) (g) of Directive            assessment, until 31 December 1992, and under Article 28(2)(e) of
      84/450/EEC as amended by Directive 97/55/EC, where                    that Directive as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of
      product numbers (OEM numbers) of an equipment manufac-                19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added
      turer are, as such, distinguishing marks within the meaning of        tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT
      that provision, their use in the catalogues of a competing            rates), as from 1 January 1993, subject to the necessity to respect the
      supplier enables him to take unfair advantage of the reputation       principle of neutrality of the value added tax.
      attached to those marks only if the effect of the reference to
      them is to create, in the mind of the persons at whom the             The liberal professions mentioned in Annex F(2) to the Sixth
      advertising is directed, an association between the manufacturer      Directive 77/388/EEC are activities which involve a marked intellec-
      whose products are identified and the competing supplier, in          tual character, require a high-level qualification and are usually
      that those persons associate the reputation of the manufacturer’s     subject to clear and strict professional regulation. In the exercise of
      products with the products of the competing supplier. In order        such an activity, the personal element is of special importance and
      to determine whether that condition is satisfied, account should      such exercise always involves a large measure of independence in the
      be taken of the overall presentation of the advertising at issue      accomplishment of the professional activities.
      and the type of persons for whom the advertising is intended.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1998.                                                   (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 October 2001                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-267/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                                of 18 October 2001
from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg):
Christiane Adam, épouse Urbing v Administration de
               l’enregistrement et des domaines (1)                         in Case C-354/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
(Sixth VAT directive — Concept of liberal profession —
         Managing agent of buildings in co-ownership)                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 86/609/EEC —
                                                                                Incomplete implementation)
                           (2001/C 348/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                    (2001/C 348/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: English)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-267/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               In Case C-354/99: Commission of the European Communities
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        (Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agents: initially M.A. Buck-


title: Case C-484/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Mariana Budan v Romanian State — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice represented by the Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Argeș

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 20 September 2011 — Mariana Budan v Romanian State — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice represented by the Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Argeș
   (Case C-484/11)
   2011/C 347/22
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Argeș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mariana Budan

      Defendant: Romanian State — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice (Ministry for Public Finance) represented by the Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice (Directorate General for Public Finance), Argeș

      Intervener: Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu

      Question referred

   In the interpretation given by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the fundamental principles laid down by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the Treaties of the European Union — and in the absence of any domestic legislation (as result of the declaration that Article 5 of Law No 221/[2009] is unconstitutional) — are the applicant, Mariana Budan, … and the intervener, Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu … entitled to compensation for non-material damage as victims of the Communist regime and now citizens of the European Union?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2001 in Case T-312/00: Alexandra Tavares v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 212/24               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.7.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment
                          of 3 May 2001                                     of a decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant
                                                                            the installation allowance and the daily substance allowances
                                                                            — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
in Case T-99/00: Ignacio Samper v European Parliament (1)                   P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                            H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 March 2001, the
(Officials — Re-establishment of career — Examination                       operative part of which is as follows:
of comparative merits — Criteria — Principle of equal
                             treatment)                                     1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                         (2001/C 212/44)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-99/00: Ignacio Samper, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by E. Boigelot,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v European
Parliament (Agents: H. von Herzen and D. Moore) — appli-
cation for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 9 June
1999 re-establishing the applicant’s career, in so far as it
promotes him to grade A4 with effect from 1 January 1998                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
rather than 1 January 1997 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, and
V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen,                                               of 20 March 2001
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3 May 2001, in which it:
                                                                            in Case T-343/00: Leandro Mercade Llordachs v European
1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 9 June 1999 re-                                          Parliament (1)
      establishing the applicant’s career, in so far as that decision
      specifies 1 January 1998 as the date on which his promotion           (Officials — Promotion by way of inter-institutional transfer
      to grade A4 is to take effect;                                        — Annulment by the Court of First Instance — Compliance
2.    Orders the defendant to pay all the costs.                            with the annulment — Decision of the Parliament to
                                                                            withdraw the earlier transfer of the official — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Manifestly unfounded in law)
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 212/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-343/00: Leandro Mercade Llordachs, residing in
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
                                                                            lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                        of 30 March 2001                                    European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore)
                                                                            — application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament
in Case T-312/00: Alexandra Tavares v Commission of the                     of 15 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
                    European Communities (1)                                Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
                                                                            and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                            20 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Officials — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissi-
                                bility)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed.
                         (2001/C 212/45)                                    2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)                          (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.
In Case T-312/00: Alexandra Tavares, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Louis Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service


title: Case C-230/10: Order of the President of the Court of 3 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Almería — Spain) — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Almería — Spain) — Águeda María Sáenz Morales v Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social de la Junta de Andalucía
   (Case C-230/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/17
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-567/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Concept of plans and programmes ‘which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ — Applicability of the directive to a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-567/10) (1)

   (Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Concept of plans and programmes ‘which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’ - Applicability of the directive to a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan)
   2012/C 133/12
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL

      Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle — Interpretation of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Applicability of the directive to a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan — Interpretation of the concept of ‘plans and programmes which are required’ — Exclusion of plans the adoption of which is not compulsory

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of plans and programmes ‘which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’, appearing in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as also concerning specific land development plans, such as the one covered by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.

               2.

               Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a land use plan, such as the procedure laid down in Articles 58 to 63 of the Brussels Town and Country Planning Code, as amended by the Order of 14 May 2009, falls in principle within the scope of that directive, so that it is subject to the rules relating to the assessment of effects on the environment that are laid down by the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case T-294/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MOUNT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark GOLD MOUNT — No genuine use of the trade mark — No proper reasons for non-use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MOUNT)
   (Case T-294/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark GOLD MOUNT - No genuine use of the trade mark - No proper reasons for non-use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 239/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Company FZE, formerly Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez and I. Valdelomar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hussey, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 (Case R 1857/2015-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Global Tobacco and Kaane American International Tobacco.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kaane American International Tobacco Company FZE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.