title: Case T-94/15: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Binca Seafoods v Commission (Action for annulment — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — No prorogation of the transitory measure concerning aquaculture animals laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Lack of locus standi — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/44

         Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Binca Seafoods v Commission
   (Case T-94/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 - No prorogation of the transitory measure concerning aquaculture animals laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 - Lack of locus standi - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 156/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Binca Seafoods GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, H. Kranenborg and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Binca Seafoods GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-311/15: Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/46

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi
   (Case C-311/15) (1)

   (2016/C 038/59)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-659/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/72

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter v Parliament
   (Case T-659/15)
   (2016/C 048/80)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mark Lee Hunter (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8684 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case C-531/09: Action brought on 18 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/22

         Action brought on 18 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-531/09)
   2010/C 51/35
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Teles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 10 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 157, p. 8.


title: Case T-597/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark dadida — Earlier Community word mark CALIDA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida)
   (Case T-597/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark dadida - Earlier Community word mark CALIDA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 414/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Calida Holding AG (Sursee, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kaase and H. Dirksmeier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1190/2012-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Calida Holding AG and Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Calida Holding AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-167/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Newcastle upon Tyne — United Kingdom) — C. D. v S. T. (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Social policy  — Directive 92/85/EEC  — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding  — Article 8  — Commissioning mother who has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement  — Refusal to grant her maternity leave  — Directive 2006/54/EC  — Equal treatment of male and female workers  — Article 14  — Less favourable treatment of a commissioning mother as regards the grant of maternity leave)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Newcastle upon Tyne — United Kingdom) — C. D. v S. T.
   (Case C-167/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 8 - Commissioning mother who has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement - Refusal to grant her maternity leave - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of male and female workers - Article 14 - Less favourable treatment of a commissioning mother as regards the grant of maternity leave))
   2014/C 142/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Employment Tribunal, Newcastle upon Tyne

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C. D.

      Defendant: S. T.

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal Newcastle upon Tyne — Interpretation of Articles 1(1), 2(c), 8(1) and 11(2)(b) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 14 and 2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Prohibition of any less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity leave within the meaning of Directive 92/85/EEC — Scope — Non-biological mother having recourse to surrogacy — Right to maternity leave.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not required to provide maternity leave pursuant to Article 8 of that directive to a female worker who as a commissioning mother has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement, even in circumstances where she may breastfeed the baby following the birth or where she does breastfeed the baby;

               2)

               Article 14 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and (2)(c) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer’s refusal to provide maternity leave to a commissioning mother who has had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case C-271/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in (1) Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in (1) Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri
   (Case C-271/05)
   (2005/C 229/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) of 18 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between (1) Francesco Rauty against Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia against Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri on the following questions:

               (1)

               Are ‘laurea in architettura’ diplomas and ‘laurea in ingegneria civile’ diplomas awarded by Italian universities and university institutes to be regarded as equivalent in respect of Italy, as provided for in Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985, (1) so that graduates in civil engineering with the relevant qualification are entitled to pursue the profession of architect and therefore to carry out all the tasks and assignments which any internal provisions of the State allow only the architects' profession to perform; or

               (2)

               Have the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 cited above recognised the equivalence of the two diplomas (in architecture and civil engineering) only to the extent that both allow access to the profession of architect subject to successful completion of a special examination giving entitlement to pursue the profession of architect?

      (1)  OJ L 223 of 21.08.1985, p. 15.


title: Case T-71/06: Action brought on  27 February 2006  — ENERCON v OHIM

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/23

         Action brought on 27 February 2006 — ENERCON v OHIM
   (Case T-71/06)
   (2006/C 108/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ENERCON GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 November 2005 (Case 0179/2005-2);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional mark in the form of a section of a wind turbine for goods in Class 7 — Application No 2496743

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the ground that the shape of the product covered by the mark is outside the usual range of forms. The three-dimensional mark is therefore distinctive.
   Infringement of Article 7(3) of the Regulation inasmuch as the Board of Appeal, after considering the circumstances, should have invited the applicant to provide further opinions, if this could have led to constituting evidence for the purpose of Article 7(3).


title: Case T-313/16: Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/43

         Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission
   (Case T-313/16) (1)

   (2017/C 078/61)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case C-194/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Orange European Smallcap Fund N.V. (Articles 56 EC to 58 EC — Free movement of capital — Taxation of dividends — Concession granted to a fiscal investment enterprise on account of tax deducted at source by another State from dividends received by that enterprise — Restriction of that concession to the amount that a shareholder resident in the Member State of establishment of that enterprise who has made an investment without such an enterprise acting as intermediary could have had credited to income tax on the basis of a convention for the prevention of double taxation — Restriction of that concession by reference to the shares of non-resident shareholders in the capital of that enterprise)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Orange European Smallcap Fund N.V.
   (Case C-194/06) (1)

   (Articles 56 EC to 58 EC - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends - Concession granted to a fiscal investment enterprise on account of tax deducted at source by another State from dividends received by that enterprise - Restriction of that concession to the amount that a shareholder resident in the Member State of establishment of that enterprise who has made an investment without such an enterprise acting as intermediary could have had credited to income tax on the basis of a convention for the prevention of double taxation - Restriction of that concession by reference to the shares of non-resident shareholders in the capital of that enterprise)
   (2008/C 171/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Orange European Smallcap Fund N.V.
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58(1) EC — National legislation granting a tax credit to an investment undertaking in respect of tax on dividends deducted at source by another Member State — Limitation in the case of shareholders not resident in the Netherlands or not subject to Netherlands corporation tax
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by those enterprises, and restricts that concession to the amount which a natural person resident in the first Member State could have had credited, on account of similar deductions, on the basis of a double taxation convention concluded with that other Member State.

               2.

               Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State or third country from dividends received by those enterprises, and reduces that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of those enterprises are natural or legal persons resident or established in other Member States or in third countries, since such a reduction adversely affects all the shareholders of those enterprises without distinction.
               In that respect, whether the foreign shareholders of a fiscal investment enterprise are resident or established in a State with which the Member State of establishment of that enterprise has concluded a convention providing for reciprocal crediting of tax deducted at source from dividends is irrelevant.

               3.

               A restriction is covered by Article 57(1) EC as being a restriction on the movement of capital involving direct investment in so far as it relates to investments of any kind undertaken by natural or legal persons and which serve to establish or maintain lasting and direct links between the persons providing the capital and the undertakings to which that capital is made available in order to carry out an economic activity.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case F-37/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Investigation procedure — Report of the Investigation Panel — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint — Annulment — Action for compensation)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/88

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-37/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Investigation procedure - Report of the Investigation Panel - Incorrect definition of psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the EIB to take no action on a complaint - Annulment - Action for compensation))
   (2016/C 048/98)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, on the one hand, of the letter of the President of the EIB by which he rejected, following the opinion of the ‘Dignity at work’ Panel, the applicant’s complaint concerning psychological harassment and, on the other, the findings of the opinion of that Panel in so far as it does not find any facts of psychological harassment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 20 December 2011 by which the President of the European Investment Bank rejected Mr De Nicola’s complaint of psychological harassment

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 24.


title: Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 19 July 1999 in Case T-188/97: Rothmans International BV v Commission of the European Communities (Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to Commission documents - Decision refusing access to documents - 'Rule on authorship' - 'Comitology' committees)

text:
C 299/22                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.10.1999
   JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 19 July 1999                                                           of 9 July 1999
in Case T-188/97: Rothmans International BV v Com-                         in Case T-231/97: New Europe Consulting Ltd and Michael
           mission of the European Communities (1)                         P. Brown v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public                     (PHARE programme — Action for damages — Conditions
access to Commission documents — Decision refusing access                  — Principle of sound administration — Assessment of
to documents — ‘Rule on authorship’ — ‘Comitology’                                                       damage)
                              committees)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/29)
                           (1999/C 299/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-231/97: New Europe Consulting Ltd, established in
In Case T-188/97: Rothmans International BV (formerly                      Dublin, and Michael P. Brown, residing in Ballinasloe, County
Rothmans Group Holdings BV), having its registered office in               Galway (Ireland), represented by Alberic De Roeck and Benja-
Amsterdam, represented by Scott Crosby, Solicitor, with an                 min De Roeck, of the Antwerp Bar, 2 Lange Lozanastraat,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor                Antwerp (Belgium) v Commission of the European Communi-
Elvinger, 31 Rue d’Eich, supported by Kingdom of Sweden                    ties (Agents: Marie-José Jonczy and Maurits Lugard) — appli-
(Agent: initially Erik Brattgård and then Anders Kruse), v                 cation for compensation for the damage allegedly caused to
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                  the applicants by the Commission’s wrongful conduct towards
Ulrich Wölker and Carmel O’Reilly and subsequently Ulrich                  them in the context of the PHARE programme — the Court
Wölker and Xavier Lewis) — application for the annulment of                (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
a Commission decision refusing the applicant access to the                 V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
minutes of the Customs Code Committee — the Court (First                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 1999, in which
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                it:
President, C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
ras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 July
1999, in which it:                                                         1. Orders the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR
                                                                                100 000 to New Europe Consulting Ltd and damages in the
                                                                                amount of EUR 25 000 to Michael P. Brown;
1. Annuls the Commission decision of 30 April 1997 refusing the
     applicant access to the minutes of the Customs Committee;
                                                                           2. Orders the amounts of damages to bear default interest at the
                                                                                annual rate of 4.5 % from the date of this judgment until actual
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant, in                  payment;
     addition to its own costs;
                                                                           3. Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.                          the applicants.
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.                                                 (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.


title: Case C-650/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 25/09/2015 in Case T-268/10 RENV: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/25

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2015 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 25/09/2015 in Case T-268/10 RENV: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-650/15 P)
   (2016/C 048/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG), SNF SAS (represented by: R. Cana, avocat, D. Abrahams, barrister, E. Mullier, avocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV;

               —

               Annul the Contested Act;

               —

               Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants’ application for annulment;

               —

               Order the Respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 RENV which dismissed the Appellants’ action for annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation No. 1907/2006 (1) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006.
   The pleas in law relied on by the Appellants can be summarised as follows:

               1.

               the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation in its interpretation of the definition of ‘intermediates’ in Article 3(15) of the REACH Regulation

                           a)

                           by interpreting the end uses of the synthesised substance as an exclusion criterion contrary to the clear wording of Article 3(15);

                           b)

                           by interpreting the definition of ‘intermediates’ in a manner contrary to the purpose of the provisions of the REACH Regulation; and

                           c)

                           by failing to assess independently, and relying on irrelevant sections of, Appendix 4 of the ECHA Guidance on Intermediates;

               2.

               the General Court breached the duty to state reasons by failing to address the Appellants’ argument that Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation covers Title VII of the REACH Regulation in its entirety;

               3.

               the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the REACH Regulation insofar as it ruled that intermediates are not exempted from Article 59 of the REACH Regulation;

               4.

               the General Court erred in law in ruling that the Respondent has not committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration the information in Annex XV of the REACH Regulation;

               5.

               the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the proportionality of the Contested Act; and

               6.

               the General Court breached its duty to state reasons by failing to address the less onerous measures put forward by the Appellants.

      (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 L 396, p. 1


title: Case T-674/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014  — SEA v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/23

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — SEA v Commission
   (Case T-674/14)
   2014/C 388/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Società per azioni esercizi aeroportuali (SEA) (Segrate, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti, J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C (2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 whereby the European Commission initiated a formal investigation procedure concerning the setting up of Airport Handling (‘the contested decision’);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to state reasons in the contested decision.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, no account was taken of elements which had an essential part to play in the adoption of that decision and of which the Commission had been fully informed (for example, the fact that a Trust had been established in order to ensure a complete economic break between Airport Handling and SEA Handling, a company alleged to have received State aid SA.21420).

               2.

               Second plea in law: misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU as a result of an error in the assessment of important elements and objective information brought to the Commission’s attention by the applicant.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, in the contested decision, the Commission wrongly held that Airport Handling could be regarded as SEA Handling’s economic successor and that the applicant’s financial contribution to Airport Handling constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law: breach of the fundamental principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, sound administration, proportionality and non-discrimination.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that both the conduct displayed by the departments of the Commission and the contested decision are patently contrary to those principles of EU law. In particular, with regard to the principle of proportionality, the applicant submits that the Commission should have allayed its own concerns by carrying out a thorough analysis of the information supplied by the applicant before the investigation, instead of adopting the — now contested — decision launching a formal investigation procedure.


title: Case T-388/12: Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö (CORDIO)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/28

      Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö (CORDIO)
      (Case T-388/12)
      (2012/C 331/54)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Daniela Singer (Obertrubach, Germany) (represented by: B. Korom, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö rt (Budapest, Hungary)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2012 in Case R 1842/2011-2

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

         Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CORDIO’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 115 262

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö rt

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CORDIA’ for services in Classes 36, 37 and 42

         Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

         Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-422/11: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014  — Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of computer services for software development and maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of information technology applications — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Abnormally low tender — Article 139(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Choice of legal basis — Misuse of powers)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014 — Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission
   (Case T-422/11) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of computer services for software development and maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of information technology applications - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Abnormally low tender - Article 139(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Choice of legal basis - Misuse of powers))
   (2014/C 448/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) SA (Dommeldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by S. Delaude and D. Calciu, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Petritsi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011 not to accept the tenders submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and another company for Lots Nos 1 and 3 in tendering procedure AO 10340, concerning the provision of computer services for software development and maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of information technology (OJ 2011/S 66-106099), and to award the framework contracts to other tenderers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case C-256/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Sandd B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Sandd B.V. v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)
   (Case C-256/17)
   (2017/C 256/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Rotterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sandd B.V.

      Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

      Other party to the proceedings: PostNL

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 14(2) of Directive 97/67/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (the Postal Directive) be interpreted as meaning that it follows that national legislation must provide that universal service providers must, in their internal accounting, keep separate accounts for each of the services and products which are part of the universal service in order to be able to make a clear distinction between each of the services and products which are part of the universal service and services and products which are not part of such a service, or does it only follow from that provision that an accounting distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the services and products which are part of the universal service and, on the other hand, services and products which are not part of such a service?

               2)

               Must the introductory paragraph and second indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services be interpreted as meaning that each individual service that is part of the universal service must be cost-oriented?

               3)

               Does the requirement laid down in the introductory paragraph and second indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services, that prices must be cost-oriented and give incentives for an efficient universal service provision preclude the adoption for an indefinite period of a fixed rate of return by which the costs of the universal postal services are increased having regard to tariff headroom?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 15, p. 14.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3.


title: Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-36/96 between Giuliana Gaspari and the European Parliament (Case C-316/97 P)

text:
1 . 11 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 /13
Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 by the European                   Action brought on 16 September 1997 by the Commission
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 10 July                  of the European Communities against the Federal
1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                                  Republic of Germany
of the European Communities in Case T-36/96 between                                          ( Case C-320/97)
        Giuliana Gaspari and the European Parliament
                         Case C-3 16/97 P)                                                     ( 97/C 331/24 )
                          ( 97/C 331/23 )
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice on 16 September 1997
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997              by the Commission of the European Communities,
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the            represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
European Communities in Case T-36/96 between Giuliana                 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Gaspari and the European Parliament was brought on                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
12 September 1997 by Manfred Peter, Head of Division in               also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
the Legal Service, and Antonio Caiola, of the same                    Kirchberg.
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the European
Parliament, Kirchberg.                                                The Commission claims that the Court should :
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                      1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                          necessary to comply with Directive 94/3 7/EC (')
— annul the contested judgment delivered by the Court                     within the period prescribed, the Federal Republic of
     of First Instance on 10 July 1997 in Case T-36/96                    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     Giuliana Gaspari v. European Parliament ('),                         EC Treaty and that Directive,
— make the form of order sought by the Parliament                     2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
     before the Court of First Instance, namely:
     — declare the application unfounded,                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — order the applicant to pay the costs,
                                                                      The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty requires
— as to the costs before the Court of Justice, to make                Member States to transpose directives addressed to them
     such an order as seems equitable to the Court.                   into national law so that they take full effect before the
                                                                      period prescribed for transposition expires. Although that
                                                                      time-limit expired on 31 July 1995, the Federal Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   of Germany had not adopted the necessary provisions.
Breach of Community law:                                              H OJ L 194, 29 . 7. 1994, p . 65 .
— The application should have been dismissed as
     inadmissible since the pleas in law raised were not put
     forward in the prior administrative complaint.
— The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Stockholms
     the contested measure did not contain a statement of             Tingsratt by order of that court of 15 September 1997 in
     reasons or a sufficient statement of reasons . It is for         the case of Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wakeras
     the official concerned to show that the opinion of the                          Andersson v. the Swedish State
     examining doctor is not justified. If that were not the                                 ( Case C-321/97)
     case, the entire system laid down in Article 59 ( 1 ) of
     the Staff Regulations would no longer make sense .                                        ( 97/C 331 /25 )
— The Court of First Instance wrongly raised of its own
     motion a plea based on a supposed breach of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     rights of the defense .                                          European Communities by order of the Stockholms
                                                                      Tingsratt ( District Court, Stockholm ) of 15 September
                                                                      1997, received at the Court Registry on 17 September
(>) OJ C 252, 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 29 .
                                                                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ulla-Brith
                                                                      Andersson     and    Susanne       Wakeras-Andersson   v.  the
                                                                      Swedish State on the following questions:


title: Case C-379/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 7 August 2014  — TOP Logistics BV and Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Co. Ltd and Bacardi International Ltd

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 7 August 2014 — TOP Logistics BV and Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Co. Ltd and Bacardi International Ltd
   (Case C-379/14)
   2014/C 388/02
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV

      Respondents: Bacardi & Co. Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd

      Questions referred

   These questions concern goods originating outside the EEA which, after having been brought into the territory of the EEA (neither by the trade mark proprietor nor with its consent), are placed, in a Member State of the European Union, under the external transit procedure or under the customs warehousing procedure (within the meaning of the Community Customs Code: Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) (old) and Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (2)).

               1.

               Where, in circumstances such as those in the case at issue, such goods are subsequently placed under a duty suspension arrangement, must those goods then be regarded as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC (3) (now Directive 2008/95/EC) (4), with the result that there is ‘[use] (of the sign) in the course of trade’ that can be prohibited by the trade mark proprietor pursuant to Article 5(1) of that directive?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must it then be accepted that, in circumstances such as those in the case at issue, the mere presence in a Member State of such goods (which have been placed under a duty suspension arrangement in that Member State) does not prejudice, or cannot prejudice, the functions of the trade mark, with the result that the trade mark proprietor which invokes national trade mark rights in that Member State cannot oppose that presence?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) (OJ 2008 L 145, p. 1).

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

      (4)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case T-594/13: Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/29

         Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
   (Case T-594/13)
   2014/C 24/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

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

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

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 August 2013 given in Case R 1625/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TAILORBYRD’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 325 507

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

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

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-468/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   (Case C-468/06)
   (2007/C 20/03)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Sot. Lelos kai Sia EE

      Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   Questions referred:

               1.

               Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceutical wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within the meaning of Article 82 EC? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the Member States of the European Union, that is to say by the fact that pure conditions of competition do not prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which is governed to a large extent by State intervention? Is it ultimately the duty of a national competition authority to apply Community competition rules in the same way to markets which function competitively and those in which competition is distorted by State intervention?

               2.

               If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive practice in every case where it is engaged in by an undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible abuse to be assessed? In particular:

               2.1

               Do the percentage by which normal domestic consumption is exceeded and/or the loss suffered by an undertaking holding a dominant position compared with its total turnover and total profits constitute appropriate criteria? If so, how are the level of that percentage and the level of that loss determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover and total profits), above which the conduct in question may be abusive?

               2.2

               Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be compared? In particular:

                           (a)

                           is the answer affected by the fact that the ultimate consumer/patient derives limited financial advantage from the parallel trade and

                           (b)

                           is account to be taken, and to what extent, of the interests of social insurance bodies in cheaper medicinal products?

               2.3

               What other criteria and approaches are considered appropriate in the present case?


title: Case C-195/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Confederazione generale dell'industria italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Confederazione generale dell'industria italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-195/13)
   2013/C 207/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confederazione generale dell'industria italiana (Confindustria) and Others

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (under Article 4(3) TEU, Article 101 TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU) compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?

               2.

               Are such limitations of those principles justifiable — and, if so, under what conditions — in the light of the need to safeguard the public interest in road traffic safety and, in terms of that functional consideration, is there a proper place for the fixing of minimum operating costs as provided for under Article 83a of Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (as subsequently amended and supplemented)?

               3.

               Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector?


title: Case C-324/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 July 2008 — 1. Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel CV, 2. Metro Cash & Carry BV and 3. Remo Zaandam BV v Diesel SpA

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 July 2008 — 1. Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel CV, 2. Metro Cash & Carry BV and 3. Remo Zaandam BV v Diesel SpA
   (Case C-324/08)
   (2008/C 272/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: 1. Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel CV, 2. Metro Cash & Carry BV and 3. Remo Zaandam BV

      Respondent: Diesel SpA
   Questions referred

               1.

               In the case where goods bearing a trade mark proprietor's mark have previously been placed on the market within the EEA, but not by him or with his express consent, must the same criteria be applied in determining whether this has occurred with the (implicit) consent of the trade mark proprietor, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as are applied in the case where such goods have previously been placed on the market outside the EEA by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria — whether or not derived (in part) from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-9/93 IHT and Danzinger v Ideal-Standard and Wabco Standard [1994] ECR I-2789, … — must be applied in the first case referred to in that question in order to determine whether the trade mark proprietor has given (implicit) consent within the meaning of Directive 89/104/EEC?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Case T-60/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator(stabilator) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for community figurative mark stabilator — Earlier Community word mark STABILAT — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Herhof v OHIM — Stabilator(stabilator)
   (Case T-60/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for community figurative mark stabilator - Earlier Community word mark STABILAT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 221/69
   Language of the case: German.

      Parties

      Applicant: Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Solms, Germany) (represented by: A. Zinnecker and T. Bösling, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Stabilator sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: M. Kacprzak, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008 (Cases R 483/2008-4 and R 705/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Stabilator sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, of 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-606/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (Anafé) v Ministre de l’intérieur, de l’outre-mer, des collectivités territoriales et de l’immigration

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (Anafé) v Ministre de l’intérieur, de l’outre-mer, des collectivités territoriales et de l’immigration
   (Case C-606/10)
   2011/C 72/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (Anafé)

      Defendant: Ministre de l’intérieur, de l’outre-mer, des collectivités territoriales et de l’immigration

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1) apply to re-entry by a third-country national into the territory of a Member State which has issued that person with a temporary residence permit, where re-entry into its territory does not require entry, transit or stay in the territory of the other Member States?

               2.

               In what circumstances may a Member State issue to third-country nationals a ‘re-entry visa’ within the meaning of Article 5(4)(a) of that regulation? In particular, may such a visa limit entry only to points of entry into the territory of that State?

               3.

               In so far as Regulation No 562/2006 excludes all possibility of entry into the territory of the Member States for third-party nationals who hold only a temporary residence permit issued pending examination of a first application for a residence permit or an application for asylum, contrary to what was allowed under the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, in the version prior to its amendment by that regulation, did the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations require that transitional measures should be laid down in respect of third-country nationals who left the territory of those States when they were holders of only a temporary residence permit issued pending examination of a first application for a residence permit or an application for asylum, and wish to return there after the entry into force of Regulation No 562/2006?

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 1.


title: Case C-568/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 5 November 2015 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V. v comtech GmbH

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 5 November 2015 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V. v comtech GmbH
   (Case C-568/15)
   (2016/C 038/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

      Defendant: comtech GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts concluded with the trader, a consumer contacting the trader by telephone must not incur higher charges than those that the consumer would incur for calling a standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number?

               2.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU preclude national legislation according to which, where a trader operates a shared-cost service on an 0180 number for the purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts concluded with the trader, a consumer must pay that which the telecommunications service provider charges the consumer for the use of that telecommunications service, even where those charges exceed those which the consumer would incur for calling a standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number?
               Does the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU not preclude such national legislation where the telecommunications service provider does not pass on to the trader part of the charges that he receives from the consumer for contacting the trader on the 0180 number?

      (1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).


title: Case T-62/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Golam v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX — Earlier national word mark BIOMAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)
   (Case T-62/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX - Earlier national word mark BIOMAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 245/17
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Ballas and N. Prentoulis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 2089/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Ms Sofia Golam

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-303/03: Action brought on 4 September 2003 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 275/46               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Canali Ireland                       Decision of the Board of      Annulent of the Decision of the
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      Appeal:                       Opposition Division and rejection
                         Internal Market                                                               of the opposition
                                                                         Pleas in Law:                 Incorrect       application      of
                         (Case T-301/03)
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 (risk of confusion).
                         (2003/C 275/77)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: English)
                                                                         Action brought on 4 September 2003 by Lidl Stiftung &
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Canali Ireland
Limited, Dublin, (Ireland), represented by C. Gielen and O.                                       (Case T-303/03)
Schmutzer, lawyers. Canali S.p.A. was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/78)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                                                                                submitted: German)
      17 June 2003;
—     declare that the opposition filed against the application
      by the applicant for the mark CANAL JEAN CO succeeds
      and to refuse the application for this mark in its entirety        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      and/or to give any order that the Court deems fit;                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         4 September 2003 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, Neckarsulm
—     order for payment of all cost of the proceedings against           (Germany), represented by P. Groß, lawyer. REWE-Zentral AG,
      the applicant.                                                     Cologne (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before
                                                                         the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-            Canal Jean Co., Inc.                       —     declare void and annul the decision of 30 June 2003 of
munity trade mark:                                                             the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                               in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on the
Community trade mark          Figurative trade mark ‘CANAL —                   appeal in Case R 408/2002-1 concerning registration of
sought:                       JEAN          CO.’     Application               the Community trade mark ‘Salvita’ under Application
                              No 425363, relating to goods                     No 609339;
                              in Class 25 (Articles of clothing,
                              footwear, head gear).                      —     order the defendant to reimburse the applicant the costs
                                                                               of these proceedings.
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Mark or sign cited in         Italian trade mark registration
opposition:                   No 513948 for the word mark
                              ‘CANALI’ for goods and services            Applicant for Com-            REWE-Zentral AG
                              in Classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20,        munity trade mark:
                              25, 34 and 42
                                                                         Community trade mark          The word mark ‘Salvita’ for goods
Decision of the Oppo-         Admission of the opposition                sought:                       in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 —
sition Division:                                                                                Application No 609339
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/47
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant in this case                  Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                          Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this case
Mark or sign cited in         The German word mark ‘SOLEVI-               munity trade mark:
opposition:                   TA’ for goods in Class 32
                                                                          Community trade mark          The word/figurative mark ‘Opus-
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition                 sought:                       Dent’ for goods and services in
sition Division:                                                                                Classes 9, 10 and 42 (inter alia,
                                                                                lasers, not for medical purposes;
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal                                       medical, dental and aesthetic
Appeal:                                                                                lasers; medical and dental treat-
                                                                                ment)         —         Application
Pleas in law:                 The applicant has submitted                                               No 1331230
                              adequate evidence of genuine use
                              of the opposing mark;                       Proprietor of mark or         Dornier Medizintechnik GmbH
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
                              —     Infringement of the maxim             sition proceedings:
                                    of party disposition laid
                                    down in the second sentence
                                    of Article 74(1) of Regu-             Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark
                                    lation 40/94;                         opposition:                   ‘Opus’ for goods in Class 10 (inter
                                                                                alia, medical tables for examin-
                              —     Failure to respect the right to                                     ations and treatment, X-ray appar-
                                    be heard.                                                           atus and X-ray work stations)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         The opposition was upheld in
                                                                          sition Division:              respect of the goods ‘medical, den-
                                                                                tal and aesthetic lasers’ and reject-
                                                                                ed in respect of the remaining
                                                                                goods and services
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by OpusDent                            Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                          Appeal:
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                 No likelihood of confusion
                         (Case T-305/03)
                         (2003/C 275/79)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós
                                                                           Grau against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                        (Case T-309/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by OpusDent GmbH, Freising (Germany),
represented by P. Munzinger, lawyer. Dornier Medizintechnik                                       (2003/C 275/80)
GmbH, Weßling (Germany), was also a party to the proceed-
ings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 23 June 2003 of the Second Board              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      of Appeal of the defendant in Case R 579/2002-2;                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Manel Grau,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.            residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer.


title: Case C-525/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava (Spain) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava (Spain) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada
   (Case C-525/15)
   (2015/C 414/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Álava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laboral Kutxa

      Defendant: Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

      Question referred

   Is the limitation of the consequences of holding a term to be ineffective because unfair, restricting the effects of restitution of sums paid but not due, by applying it from a particular date instead of from the moment the unfair, void term was first applied, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

      (1)  OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-110/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2013 — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2013 — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben
   (Case C-110/13)
   2013/C 147/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant on a point of law: HaTeFo GmbH

      Defendant and respondent on a point of law: Finanzamt Haldensleben

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           What requirements are to be set for a finding that persons are ‘acting jointly’ within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (1) (‘the SME Recommendation’): Is it simply sufficient in this respect that there is any enterprise-related cooperation between the natural persons with shareholdings in both enterprises, without disputes or conflicts of interest coming to light, or rather is some recognisably coordinated course of conduct by these persons required?

                           (b)

                           If some coordinated course of conduct is required: Does such conduct follow simply from purely de facto cooperation?

               2.

               Where no obligation to draw up consolidated accounts exists, is it necessary, in order to decide whether an enterprise is linked with another enterprise via a person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, to undertake, over and above an examination of the ‘relationships’ set out in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to the SME Recommendation, an overall economic examination, in which aspects such as property relationships — in this case particularly the fact that shareholders belong to one family —, the share structure and the degree of economic integration — in particular also the identity of the managing directors — of the enterprises in question are to be scrutinised?

               3.

               In the event that, also where the SME Recommendation applies, an overall economic examination going beyond the formal examination is possible: Does this presuppose the intention, or at least the risk, of circumventing the SME definition?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36.


title: Case C-42/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour D’Appel D’Amiens (France) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour D’Appel D’Amiens (France) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge
   (Case C-42/11)
   2011/C 103/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour D’Appel D’Amiens

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the principle of non discrimination laid down by Article 12 EC preclude national legislation such as Article 695-24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which restricts the power to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a penalty involving deprivation of liberty to cases where the person whose extradition is sought is of French nationality and the competent French authorities undertake to proceed with such enforcement?

               2.

               Is the principle of the implementation in domestic law of the grounds for non enforcement provided for in Article 4(6) of the framework decision (1) a matter for the discretion of the Member States or is it compulsory, and in particular may a Member State adopt a measure involving discrimination based on nationality?

      (1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case C-64/13 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2013 by H-Holding AG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2012 in Case T-672/11 H-Holding AG v European Parliament

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/5

         Appeal brought on 7 February 2013 by H-Holding AG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2012 in Case T-672/11 H-Holding AG v European Parliament
   (Case C-64/13 P)
   2013/C 336/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: H-Holding AG (represented by: R. Závodný, advokát)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   By order of 5 September 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided to order the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-300/08 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Leche Celta, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Celia SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Mixed word and figurative trade mark, Celia — Relative grounds for refusal of registration — Similarity of the mark for which registration is sought with an earlier mark — Mark concerning identical goods — Likelihood of confusion — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/16

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Leche Celta, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Celia SA
   (Case C-300/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Mixed word and figurative trade mark, Celia - Relative grounds for refusal of registration - Similarity of the mark for which registration is sought with an earlier mark - Mark concerning identical goods - Likelihood of confusion - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   2009/C 220/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Leche Celta, SL (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Celia SA (represented by: D. Masson and F. de Castelnau, avocats)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2008 in Case T-35/07 Leche Celta v OHIM, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2006 concerning opposition proceedings between Leche Celta SL and Celia SA — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Relative grounds for refusal of registration of a trade mark — Likelihood of confusion linked to an application for registration of a trade mark similar to an earlier mark relating to identical goods — Visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison of the signs

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Leche Celta SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-153/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/31

         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-153/06)
   (2006/C 131/58)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (1) or in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 13 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 37, 13.02.2003, p. 24.


title: Case C-222/08: Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/24

         Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-222/08)
   (2008/C 209/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by virtue of the transposition into national law of the provisions on the costing and financing of universal service obligations, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1), 13(1), and Annex IV, part A, of Directive 2002/22/EC;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The objective of Directive 2002/22 is, inter alia, to define the situations in which the market does not satisfactorily meet the needs of end-users and the directive contains provisions regarding the availability of the universal service. Article 12(1) of the directive provides that where national regulatory authorities consider that the provision of universal service may represent an unfair burden on undertakings designated to provide universal service, they are to calculate the net costs of its provision in the manner set out in that article. Annex IV, part A, contains provisions concerning the calculation of the net costs. Article 13(1) provides that where, on the basis of the net cost calculation referred to in Article 12, national regulatory authorities find that an undertaking is subject to an unfair burden, the Member States are, upon request from a designated undertaking, to decide to introduce a compensation mechanism.
   According to the Commission, Belgium has not correctly transposed the provisions of Article 12(1), Article 13(1) and Annex IV, part A, of the directive. The Belgian legislation provides for no assessment of the question whether the provision of social tariffs in the course of performing the universal service represents an unfair burden for the undertakings concerned. Furthermore the Belgian legislation does not satisfy the requirement concerning the costing of net costs set out more particularly in the last section of Annex IV, part A, to the directive.


title: Case T-186/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NOxtreme — Earlier Community and national figurative marks X-TREME — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme)
   (Case T-186/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark NOxtreme - Earlier Community and national figurative marks X-TREME - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlantic Multipower Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Hambourg, Allemagne) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as agent)

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, Germany) (represented by: D. Jochim and R. Egerer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (case R 764/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atlantic Multipower Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Atlantic Multipower Germany GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.