title: Removal from the register of T-138/96

text:
No C 181 /22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Gregorio Valero                           Commission's decision of 27 December 1996 rejecting
Jordana and Serge Vade against the Commission of the                        the complaint made by the applicant against the
                     European Communities                                    former decision, .
                          ( Case T-l 11 /97)                            — declare that the applicant is entitled to revision of his
                            ( 97/C 181 /45 )                                 initial classification, as requested in his written
                                                                            communication of 30 April 1996,
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             sum of one ecu by way of damages for the non
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             material damage which it has caused him,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997
by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, and                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses
Serge Vade, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                           arising from these proceedings .
Carlos Amo Quinones, of the Madrid Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Carlos Amo, 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Case T-16/97 0 ).
— annul the decision adopted on 27 December 1996                        (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
    by the Commission of the European Communities,
    rejecting the applicants' complaints of 13 and
     17 September 1996,
— annul the decisions adopted by the Directorate                                  Removal from the register of T-3 12/94 ( 1 )
     General for Personnel and Administration on 2 June
     1992 ( No 3678 ) and 1 March 1990 ( No 1269 ), albeit                                         ( 97/C 181 /47 )
     only in so far as those decisions appoint the applicants                           (Language of the case: English)
    to Grade 7;
                                                                        By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Third
— in the alternative, annul the act published in the                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    Administrative Notices of 18 and 28 June 1996                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
    whereby an unspecified administrative body                          removal from the register of Case T-3 12/94 : CEPI
     interpreted the decision adopted by the Commission of              Cartonboard v. Commission of the European
    the European Communities on 7 February 1996 and                     Communities .
    the application of that decision of the Commission to
     Gregorio Valero Jordana,                                           O OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the Commission of the European Communities
     to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                             Removal from the register of T-l 3 8/96 (')
Case T-l 6/9 7 (').                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /48 )
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Action brought on 21 April 1997 by Miguel Diaz-Llanos                   Case T-138/96 :       Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of
La Roche against the Commission of the European                         Justice of the European Communities.
                             Communities
                          ( Case T-124/97 )                             (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                            ( 97/C 181 /46 )
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European                                   Removal from the register of T-l 6 1/96 ( ] )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  ( 97/C 181 /49 )
Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1997
by Miguel Diaz-Llanos La Roche, residing in Brussels,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Edmundo Angulo Rodriguez, of the                         By order of 18 March 1997 the President of the First
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
care of Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Brabant .                                                               Case T-161 /96 : Gundolf Bosetti v. Commission of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission, as
                                                                        (') OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
     appointing authority, on 14 June 1996 , by which it
     decided not to reclassify the applicant in step, and the


title: Case T-453/16: Action brought on 10 August 2016 — Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Ellas (520Barcode Hellas)

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/23

         Action brought on 10 August 2016 — Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Ellas (520Barcode Hellas)
   (Case T-453/16)
   (2016/C 371/25)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 (Argiroupoli Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Mouzaki, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 520 Barcode Ellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion (Kifisia Attikis, Greece)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘5 201000 603856 520Barcode Hellas’ — Application for registration No 10 881 861

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 in Case R 238/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the legal fees of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75, 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


C 109/40              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                4.5.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-234/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-31/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 109/72)                                                      (2002/C 109/75)
By order of 22 January 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-234/00 (Reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-31/01: Commission of the
ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s        European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Minister of               and Northern Ireland.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons
Ltd.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-41/01 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-239/00 P (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/76)
                        (2002/C 109/73)
                                                                      By order of 23 November 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-41/01: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
from the register of Case C-239/00 P: Aldo Kuijer v Council of
the European Union.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-85/01 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-449/00 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/77)
                        (2002/C 109/74)
                                                                      By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 7 December 2001 the President of the Court of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-85/01: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-449/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
European Communities v French Republic.                               and Northern Ireland.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                             (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.


title: Case T-45/12: Action brought on 27 January 2012 — United Kingdom v ECB

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/24

         Action brought on 27 January 2012 — United Kingdom v ECB
   (Case T-45/12)
   2012/C 98/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: K. Beal, Barrister and E. Jenkinson, agent)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Central Bank’s Statement of Standards published on 18 November 2011, in so far as it sets out a location policy for central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’); and

               —

               Order that the defendant pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant lacked competence to publish the contested act, either at all or alternatively without recourse to the promulgation of a legislative instrument such as a Regulation, adopted either by the Council or alternatively by the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) itself.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act either de jure or de facto will impose a residence requirement on central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’) that wish to undertake clearing or settlement operations in the Euro currency whose daily trades exceed a certain volume. The contested act infringes all or any of Articles 48, 56 and/or 63 TFEU, in that:

                           —

                           CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States, such as the United Kingdom, will be obliged to relocate their centres of administration and control to Member States which are members of the Eurosystem. They will also be obliged to re-incorporate as legal persons recognised in the domestic law of another Member State;

                           —

                           in the event that such CCPs do not relocate as required, they will be precluded from access to the financial markets in the Eurosystem Member States, either on the same terms as CCPs established in those territories, or at all;

                           —

                           such non-resident CCPs will not be entitled to facilities offered by the ECB or the National Central Banks (‘NCBs’) of the Eurosystem, either on the same terms, or at all; and

                           —

                           as a result, the ability of such CCPs to offer clearing or settlement services in the Euro currency to customers in the Union will be restricted or even prohibited in its entirety.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested act infringes Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 106 TFEU and Article 13 TEU, since:

                           —

                           it effectively requires all clearing operations proceeding in the Euro currency exceeding a certain level to be conducted by CCPs established in a Euro area Member State;

                           —

                           it effectively directs Euro area NCBs not to supply Euro currency reserves to CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States if they exceed the thresholds set in the decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the requirement for CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States to adopt a different corporate personality and domicile amounts to direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. It also offends the general EU principle of equality, since CCPs established in different Member States are subject to disparate treatment without any objective justification for the same.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested act infringes all or any of Articles II, XI, XVI and XVII of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS).

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that without assuming the burden of establishing that a public interest justification for such restrictions is not available (the onus being on the ECB to advance its case for a derogation if it so chooses), the United Kingdom contends that any public policy justification advanced by the ECB would not satisfy the requirement of proportionality, since less restrictive means of ensuring control over financial institutions resident within the Union but outside the Euro area are available.


title: Case T-663/11: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/23

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
   (Case T-663/11) (1)

   2012/C 273/42
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-351/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vakuutusoikeus by order of that court of 18 January 2000 in the case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi

text:
C 335/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vakuutus-                   3)    If the answer to Question (2) is no, is that payment
oikeus by order of that court of 18 January 2000 in the                       nonetheless part of the taxable amount by reason of
                 case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi                                 constituting the consideration (or part of the consider-
                                                                              ation) for a supply?
                        (Case C-351/00)
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                        (2000/C 335/65)                                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Vakuutusoikeus
(Insurance Court), Finland, of 18 January 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 21 September 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi on the
following question:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                        Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
Does the pension scheme under the Valtion eläkelaki (State              by judgment of that court of 31 July 2000 in the case of
Pensions Law) fall within the scope of Article 141 EC or of                            Freskot AE against the Greek State
Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-355/00)
(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the pro-
    gressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                              (2000/C 335/67)
    men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6, 10.01.79,
    p. 24).                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-
                                                                        kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,
                                                                        Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of 31 July 2000,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2000 for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Freskot AE against the Greek
                                                                        State on the following question:
                                                                        Whether the imposition of the insurance contribution referred
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                to in the grounds of the judgment, to which domestically-
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                   produced agricultural products and by-products of vegetable
that court of 8 September 2000, in the case of Keeping                  or animal origin or originating from fishing are subject and
Newcastle Warm against Commissioners of Customs and                     which is levied and paid as income to the competent public
                              Excise                                    finance service, is, given the objective which it pursues, namely
                                                                        organising and implementing programmes of proactive protec-
                        (Case C-353/00)                                 tion and insuring the production and assets of agricultural
                                                                        enterprises, contrary to the provisions of European Union law
                                                                        concerning the free movement of goods (Article 28), the
                        (2000/C 335/66)                                 common agricultural policy (Articles 38, 39 and 40), the
                                                                        freedom to provide services (Articles 59 and 60), permitted
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  State aid (Article 92) and the provisions of the First Council
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973.
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, of 8 September 2000,
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 September
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Keeping Newcastle
Warm against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
following questions:
1)    Is a payment made by the Energy Grants Action Agency              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
      to the Appellant, which receives it in respect of energy          Commerce, Foix, France, by judgment of that court of
      advice given to an eligible householder, a subsidy within         25 September 2000 in the case of Réunion des Assureurs
      the meaning of that word in Article 11.A.I (a) of the EC                             Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-359/00)
2)    If the answer to the first Question is yes, is that payment
      also directly linked to the price of the supply of energy                                  (2000/C 335/68)
      advice, so as to form part of the taxable amount of
      that supply by reason of the concluding words of                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Article 11.A. 1(a)?                                               European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de


title: Case T-7/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Commission v Parthenon (Arbitration clause — Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration — Recovery of sums advanced)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Commission v Parthenon
   (Case T-7/05) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration - Recovery of sums advanced)
   (2006/C 331/84)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion (Aigio, Greece) (represented by: A. Masoulas, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought pursuant to Article 238 EC for the recovery of sums advanced within the framework of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, terminated by the Commission for failure by the defendant to perform its contractual obligations.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383,53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge;

               2.

               Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-65/11: Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Recombined Dairy System v Commission

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/25

         Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Recombined Dairy System v Commission
   (Case T-65/11)
   2011/C 103/43
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Recombined Dairy System (Horsens, Denmark) (represented by: T.K. Kristjánsson and T. Gønge, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(2) and (4) of the European Commission’s Decision of 12 November 2010 (Case C(2010) 7692 (REC 03/08), addressed to the Danish tax authorities, finding that post-clearance entry of an amount of EUR 1 406 486,06 (DKK 10 492 385,99) in the accounts of import duties, referred to in the Kingdom of Denmark’s request of 6 October 2008, is justified, and that a waiver of import duties in the amount of EUR1 234 365,24 (DKK 9 208 364,69), referred to in the Kingdom of Denmark’s request of 6 October 2008, is not justified.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission’s finding that a post-clearance entry is justified and that a waiver of the import duties in question is not justified is based on an assessment of whether there was error on the part of the authorities under Article 236, cf. Article 220(2)(b), and particular circumstances under Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing a Community Customs Code. (1)

   In the contested decision, the Commission found that:

               —

               there was no error on the part of the authorities in relation to two products for which the applicant had obtained Binding Tariff Information (BTI);

               —

               there was error on the part of the authorities in relation to one product, in respect of which the tax authorities had informed the applicant that a BTI was not necessary, as the applicant was in possession of a BTI for a product which was identical for customs duty purposes;

               —

               there was no error on the part of the authorities for two other products, for which the applicant had not requested BTIs, as the products were identical for customs duty purposes to products for which the applicant had obtained BTIs.

         The Commission further found that there were particular circumstances for the two products for which BTIs had been issued and for the product for which it had been decided that a BTI was not necessary, but that there were no particular circumstances for the last two products, as the applicant had not requested BTIs for those products.
   The applicant puts forward the following in support of its application:

               1.

               First plea: there was an error on the part of the authorities in respect of all five products for the entire period, since the customs authorities’ classification under heading 3504 in the BTIs issued caused the applicant to have a legitimate expectation that that classification was correct.

               2.

               Second plea: there are particular circumstances concerning the two products in respect of which BTIs were not requested, as it is beyond the scope of normal business risk that the customs authorities will, after many years, change their interpretation of the Customs Tariff with retroactive effect. (2)

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/21
The reduced rate for medicaments reimbursable by the                       Removal from the register of Case C-84/97 (1)
social security was applicable on 1 January 1991 but does                                  (1999/C 48/36)
not comply with Community law.
                                                                    By order of 27 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
Such a rate specifically for reimbursable medicaments,              European Communities has ordered the removal from the
whereas another rate is applicable to other medicaments,            register of Case C-84/97 (reference for a preliminary
is contrary to the principle of uniformity of the tax in            ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino):
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive.                            Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Grafoplast
                                                                    SpA.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
That specific rate is not, as the French Government
contends, based on objective criteria but on the legal
status of the products in question. Medicaments
reimbursable by the social security are not intrinsically
different from other medicaments.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-305/96 (1)
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/37)
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                    register of Case C-305/96: United Kingdom and Northern
                                                                    Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities.
      Removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (1)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                        (1999/C 48/34)
By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (Reference for                 Removal from the register of Case C-332/97 (1)
a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Sarclad
                                                                                (1999/C 48/38)
International Ltd v. Bundesamt für Finanzen.
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.                                             By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-332/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-178/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/35)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-367/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/39)
By order of 23 October 1998, the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
Case C-178/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-367/97: Commission
Stefano Serbini v. Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero.
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the
                                                                    Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.


title: Case C-281/00 P: Appeal brought on 14 July 2000 by Una Film "City Revue" GmbH against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film "City Revue" GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European Parliament and Council of the European Union, supported by Republic of Finland, Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and French Republic

text:
C 259/12                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
Appeal brought on 14 July 2000 by Una Film ‘City Revue’                4.    Order the respondents and the interveners in their
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000                          support jointly and severally to bear the costs of the
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                       proceedings.
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and
T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film
‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
& Co Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and
Davidoff & Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV,
Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and                      —     Mistaken assessment of the scope of the criterion of
Lancaster BV, and European Parliament and Council of                         ‘individual concern’ in the fourth paragraph of Article
the European Union, supported by Republic of Finland,                        173 of the EC Treaty (now the fourth paragraph of
Commission of the European Communities, United                               Article 230 EC) as a condition of admissibility for actions
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and                            for annulment brought by natural or legal persons: the
                           French Republic                                   Court of First Instance wrongly equates the criterion of
                                                                             ‘individual concern’ by a directive with the criterion of
                                                                             ‘direct effect’ of the directive in question to the detriment
                          (Case C-281/00 P)                                  of individuals.
                           (2000/C 259/20)                             —     Mistaken assessment of the scope of the right, which is
                                                                             one of the general principles of Community law, to
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by                  effective judicial protection in the event of infringements
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      of Community law: the Court of First Instance wrongly
European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and                            failed to interpret and apply the existing legal protection
T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film                         system and constitutional system of the Community
‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co                      in accord with the mandatory requirements of the
Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff &                      fundamental right of the individual to an effective legal
Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane                      remedy.
Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European
Parliament and Council of the European Union, supported by
Republic of Finland, Commission of the European Communi-
ties, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and French Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Una
Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH, represented by Dr Rainer Borgelt,
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, assisted by Professor Manfred Dau-
ses, University of Bamberg, with an address for service in             Action brought on 18 July 2000 by the Commission of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Reding & Felten, 2 Rue                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
J.-P. Brasseur, L-1258 Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-283/00)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                       (2000/C 259/21)
      (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in Joined Cases
      T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 and reject the plea
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      of inadmissibility put forward by the defendants and
                                                                       Court of Justice on 18 July 2000 by the Commission of
      respondents;
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
                                                                       Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
2.    Consequently, declare the application of the applicant           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
      and appellant of 22 October 1998, received at the                Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 October
      1998, admissible;
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
3.    Uphold the said application and consequently annul the
      contested Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament          1.    Declare that, by not complying with the provisions of
      and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation                 Directive 93/37/EEC as a whole and more specifically
      of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 with the provisions on public notices contained in
      of the Member States relating to the advertising and                   Article 11(2), (6), (7) and (11) and those of Articles 12(1),
      sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9);                 29(3), 18, 27 and 30(4), in connection with the tendering
                                                                             procedure for the execution of works for the Segovia
      In the alternative:                                                    Experimental Educational and Penitentiary Centre issued
                                                                             by Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras y Equipamientos
      Remit the case to the Court of First Instance for the                  Penitenciarios, SA, a company falling within the definition
      purpose of continuing the main proceedings;                            of contracting authority contained in Article 1(b) of


title: Case T-130/06: Action brought on  3 May 2006  — Drax Power and others v Commission

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/27

         Action brought on 3 May 2006 — Drax Power and others v Commission
   (Case T-130/06)
   (2006/C 165/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Drax Power Ltd (Selby, United Kingdom), Great Yarmouth Power Ltd (Swindon, United Kingdom), International Power Plc (London, United Kingdom), Npower Copgen Ltd (Swindon, United Kingdom), RWE Npower Plc (Swindon, United Kingdom), ScottishPower Generation Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom), Scottish and Southern Energy Plc (Perth, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Glick, QC, and M. Cook, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2006) 426 final of 22 February 2006 concerning the proposed amendment to the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the applicants' costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 10 November 2004, the United Kingdom notified its intention to amend its provisional national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances to the Commission. The Commission decision finding the proposed amendment inadmissible was challenged by the United Kingdom following which the decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance in its judgment in Case T-178/05 (1).
   Following this annulment, the Commission adopted a new decision concluding that the proposed amendment was inadmissible. This decision is now being challenged by the applicants.
   The applicants own, directly or through their subsidiaries, electricity generating facilities covered by Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (2). The proposed amendment to the national allocation plan would result in them receiving significantly more allowances than those currently allocated.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contested decision is in contradiction with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-178/05 and that the issues raised in the contested decision form res judicata.
   According to the applicants, the Commission wrongly concludes that the date of 30 September 2004 specified in Article 11(1) of the Directive is a cut-off deadline, and that Member States are not permitted to propose any amendments to their national allocation plans after that deadline, other than those required by a Commission decision.
   The applicants furthermore claim that the concerns expressed about the functioning of the emissions trading scheme are overstated and could not justify the rejection of the proposed amendment.

      (1)  Case T-178/05 United Kingdom v Commission [2005] ECR II-0000

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 275, p.32.


title: Case C-197/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2011 — Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele v Flemish Government

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2011 — Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele v Flemish Government
   (Case C-197/11)
   2011/C 211/25
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eric Libert, Christian Van Eycken, Max Bleeckx, Syndicat national des propriétaires et copropriétaires (ASBL), Olivier de Clippele

      Defendant: Flemish Government

      Intervening parties: Collège de la Commission communautaire française, Gouvernement de la Communauté française, Conseil des ministres

      Questions referred

   Are Articles 21, 45, 49, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1) to be interpreted as precluding the scheme established by Book 5 of the Decree of the Flemish Region of 27 March 2009 on land and real estate policy, entitled ‘Living in your own region’, which, in certain communes referred to as ‘target communes’, makes the transfer of land and buildings thereon conditional upon the purchaser or the lessee demonstrating a sufficient connection with those communes for the purposes of Article 5.2.1., §2 of the Decree?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-91/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB
   (Case C-91/12)
   2012/C 118/31
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Skatteverket

      Respondent: PFC Clinic AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the stated exemption from taxation covers services such as those at issue in the present case and which consist of:

                           (a)

                           cosmetic surgery,

                           (b)

                           cosmetic treatments?

               2.

               Does it affect that assessment if the surgery or treatments are carried out with the purpose of preventing or treating sicknesses, physical impairments or injuries?

               3.

               If due account is to be taken of the purpose, can the patient’s understanding of the purpose of the intervention be taken into consideration?

               4.

               Is it of any importance to the assessment whether the intervention is carried out by licensed medical professionals, or that such professionals decide on its purpose?

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


title: Case T-481/10: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Genetically modified food and feed — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/11

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-481/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 173/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/429/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 x MON 810 (MON-88Ø17-3 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 201, p. 46).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-671/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — IPK International v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/18

         Action brought on 22 December 2011 — IPK International v Commission
   (Case T-671/11)
   2012/C 65/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 14 October 2011 (ENTR/R1/HHO/lsa — entr.r.1(2011)1183091) in so far as it grants the applicant interest merely in the amount of EUR 158 618,27;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed Article 266 TFEU as it incorrectly calculated the compensatory and default interest to be paid as a consequence of the judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2011 in Case T-297/05 IPK International v Commission.


title: Case C-417/11 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/21

         Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council
   (Case C-417/11 P)
   2011/C 311/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Nadiany Bamba, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Council claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered on 8 June 2011 by the General Court (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council;

               —

               give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of the present appeal and dismiss the application by Ms Nadiany Bamba as unfounded; and

               —

               order Ms Nadiany Bamba to pay the costs incurred by the Council at first instance and in connection with the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council puts forward two pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   The appellant’s main plea is that the reasoning provided in the contested measures meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU and, consequently, the General Court erred in law in ruling that the contested measures are vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons. The Council provided in the recitals in the preambles to the contested measures a detailed description of the particularly serious situation in Côte d’Ivoire which justified the measures taken against certain persons and entities. Moreover, the Council clearly stated the reasons why it considers that Ms Nadiany Bamba should be subject to the restrictive measures concerned.
   In the alternative, the Council claims that the General Court erred in law in failing to take into account, in its assessment of whether the obligation to state reasons had been complied with, the context, which is well known to Ms Nadiany Bamba, in which the contested measures were adopted.


title: Case T-115/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Aceitera General Deheza v Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/58

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Aceitera General Deheza v Council
   (Case T-115/14)
   2014/C 112/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aceitera General Deheza SA (General Deheza, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear 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, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

         Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


C 184/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
       Removal from the register of Case C-291/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-354/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/62)                                                     (2003/C 184/66)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-291/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling        register of Case C-354/02: Commission of the European
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Rethmann Photo Recycling             Communities v Republic of Austria.
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-355/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-311/02 (1)                                        (2003/C 184/67)
                         (2003/C 184/63)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
By order of 6 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        register of Case C-355/02: Commission of the European
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             Communities v Republic of Austria.
register of Case C-311/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-364/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-351/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/68)
                         (2003/C 184/64)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-364/02: Commission of the European
register of Case C-351/02: Commission of the European                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
( ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
 1
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-367/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/02 ( )  1
                                                                                (2003/C 184/69)
                         (2003/C 184/65)
                                                                     By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             from the register of Case C-367/02 (Reference for a preli-
register of Case C-353/02: Commission of the European                minary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht): Deutsche Telekom
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   AG v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG.
(1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case T-416/10: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots — Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/11

         Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots)
   (Case T-416/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots - Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 184/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (Tsubame-shi, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) and Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by H. Pernez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, on the one hand, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, on the other hand

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court (Fourth Chamber):

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case F-35/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Visser-Fornt Raya v European Police Office (Europol) (Staff case — Europol employees — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/68

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Visser-Fornt Raya v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-35/09) (1)

      (Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/127)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Maria Teresa Visser-Fornt Raya (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by- D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Visser-Fornt Raya a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 26


title: Case T-388/03: Action brought on 27 November 2003 by Deutsche Post AG and DHL International N.V. /S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 35/14               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
Action brought on 27 November 2003 by Deutsche                           The Commission failed, in its decision, to take account of the
Post AG and DHL International N.V. /S.A. against the                     fact that, despite the cancellation of a provision created to
         Commission of the European Communities                          cover its obligations to pay pensions to persons employed as
                                                                         postal workers from 1972 to 1992, La Poste continues to
                                                                         be permitted to retain, without consideration, the business
                         (Case T-388/03)                                 premises initially transferred to it by way of compensation for
                                                                         creation of the provision.
                          (2004/C 35/22)
                                                                         The Commission was wrong to take the view that the
                  (Language of the case: German)                         possibility, laid down in statute, of obtaining State guarantees
                                                                         for certain loans does not constitute aid granted to La Poste
                                                                         provided that it has made no use of that facility.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The contested decision is unlawful because, when offsetting
European Communities on 27 November 2003 by Deutsche                     the financial advantages granted to La Poste against the net
Post AG, Bonn (Germany), and DHL International N.V./S.A.,                additional costs of the universal postal service, the Commission
Diegem (Belgium), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig,              failed to take account of the abovementioned measures.
lawyers.
                                                                         The Commission offset the net additional costs of performing
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              services in the public interest against the corresponding
                                                                         compensation as a whole, without examining whether the
                                                                         compensation was actually paid in respect of the period in
—     annul the decision of the European Commission of                   which the net additional costs in question were incurred.
      23 July 2003 (Aid No N 763/02) and
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 4 December 2003 by Regione Siciliana
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
The action is directed against the decision of the European
Commission, adopted in a procedure pursuant to Article 88(3)
EC, not to raise any objection to the compatibility of a capital                                 (Case T-392/03)
injection of EUR 297,5 million into the Belgian postal
company La Poste, to the exemption of La Poste from
corporation tax and from property tax on real-estate trans-                                       (2004/C 35/23)
actions effected by it in connection with the public supply
mandate, to La Poste’s ability to obtain State guarantees for                               (Language of the case: Italian)
loans taken out by it, to the cancellation of provision made for
pensions, to the overcompensation from which La Poste
benefited in respect of its public service tasks and to two
capital injections amounting to EUR 62 million in total which
were not notified to the Commission.                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities by Regione Siciliana, represented by
The applicants submit that the contested decision is incompat-           Giacomo Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato.
ible with Article 87(1) EC and Article 253 EC.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission did not treat the exemption of La Poste from
corporation tax as State aid only because, from 1992 to 2002,            —     annul Order BUDG/C5/ME/jlsD(2003)358046 of 6 Octo-
La Poste made net losses and thus would not have been                          ber 2003 of the Commission of the European Communi-
required to pay corporation tax even if no tax exemption had                   ties on the detailed rules for the recovery of the contri-
been granted. The Commission thus failed to take account of                    bution of the European Regional Development Fund
the fact that, as an abstract rule, the tax exemption automati-                (ERDF), ERDF ‘Gibbesi Dam’ cancelled by Commission
cally grants La Poste a financial advantage over other undertak-               Decision C(2002)4905 of 11 December 2002, and in
ings at least where it makes taxable profits, thereby enabling                 consequence order the Commission of the European
the declaration requirement to be avoided.                                     Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-226/06: Action brought on  17 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Action brought on 17 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-226/06)
   (2006/C 165/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and Articles 10 EC and 249 EC;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 89/391/EEC expired on 31 December 1992.
   The Commission complains that the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) of Directive 83/391 by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary to transpose the directive correctly into French law.

      (1)   OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.


title: Case T-85/00: Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and Roussel Iberica S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 163/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.6.2000
— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary                  By the present application they seek annulment of the
    costs.                                                               Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
                                                                         withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
                                                                         use which contain that substance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the
The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market              same as in Case T-76/00.
medicinal products containing norpseudoephredin in various
Member States.
By the present application they seek annulment of the
Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
use which contain that substance.
The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the               Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel,
same as in Case T-76/00.                                                 Limitada, and Roussel Iberica S.A. against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-85/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/60)
Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel,
Limitada, and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. against
       the Commission of the European Communities                                          (Language of the case: German)
                          (Case T-84/00)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                         (2000/C 163/59)                                 European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios
                                                                         Roussel, Limitada, of Mem Martins Codex, Portugal, and
                                                                         Roussel Iberica S.A., of Barcelona, Spain, represented by
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicants claim that the Court should:
European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios
Roussel, Limitada, of Mem Martins Codex, Portugal, and                   — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March
Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l., of Puteaux, France,                   2000;
represented by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Ger-
many.                                                                    — in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so
                                                                             far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  requires the Member States Portugal and Spain to withdraw
                                                                             the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March                          containing fenproporex;
    2000;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
— in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so                  costs.
    far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof requires
    the Member States France and Portugal to withdraw
    the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
    containing clobenzorex;                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
    costs.                                                               The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market
                                                                         medicinal products containing fenproporex in various Member
                                                                         States.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         By the present application they seek annulment of the
The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market              Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
medicinal products containing clobenzorex in various Member              withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
States.                                                                  use which contain that substance.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 163/31
The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the              Action brought on 13 April 2000 by Mag Instrument, Inc.
same as in Case T-76/00.                                                against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-88/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/62)
Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Bank für Arbeit
und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                     (Language of the case: German)
                            Designs)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                         (Case T-87/00)                                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                        (2000/C 163/61)                                 13 April 2000 by Mag Instrument, Inc., of Ontario, California,
                                                                        United States of America, represented by Wedig von der
                                                                        Osten-Sacken, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Hoffmann Eitle, Mu-
                  (Language of the case: German)                        nich (Federal Republic of Germany).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
11 April 2000 by the Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft,                    — annul the decision adopted on 14 February 2000 by the
Vienna, represented by Guido Kucsko, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs                Second Board of Appeal with regard to
Schönherr Barfuss Torggler & Partner, Vienna.
                                                                            — application No R 0237/1999-2: Mini Maglite pocket
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      torch manufactured by the applicant;
— annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2000 by the
                                                                            — application No R 0238/1999-2: MagLite 3C Cell
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                pocket torch manufactured by the applicant;
    the Internal Market concerning application No 000387233
    for the registration of ‘EASYBANK’ as a Community trade
    mark;                                                                   — application No R 0239/1999-2: MagLite 3D Cell
                                                                                pocket torch manufactured by the applicant;
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    to pay the costs.
                                                                            — application No R 0240/1999-2: Mag Charger pocket
                                                                                torch manufactured by the applicant;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — application No R 0241/1999-2: Solitaire pocket torch
The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘EASYBANK’ —                       manufactured by the applicant;
cerned:                       application No 387233
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 36
cerned:                       (direct banking services, in par-
                              ticular electronic banking ser-
                              vices)                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision contested be-        refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  The trade marks con-          three-dimensional marks in the
peal:                                                                   cerned:                       form of pocket torches — appli-
                                                                                cation Nos 139527, 119552,
Grounds of claim:             — misapplication of Article                                             206789, 206689, 206870
                                  7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
                                  40/94                                 Goods or service con-         Goods in Classes 9 and 11 (in
                              — misapplication of Article               cerned:                       particular, pocket torches with
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                                       accessories)
                                  40/94
                                                                        Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        fore the Board of Ap-         examiner
                                                                        peal:


title: Case T-262/17: Action brought on 30 April 2017 — Metrans v Commission and INEA

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/47

         Action brought on 30 April 2017 — Metrans v Commission and INEA
   (Case T-262/17)
   (2017/C 239/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Metrans a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Schwarz, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul with immediate effect item listed under the code 2015-CZ-TM-0330-M, entitled Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III and item listed under the code 2015-CZ-TM-0406-W, entitled Intermodal Terminal Melnik, Phases 2 and 3, in the Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 5 August 2016 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 5 November 2015 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme;

               —

               annul or alternatively declare that the grant agreement under the connecting Europe facility (CEF) — transport sector No INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2015/1133813 concluded between Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and Advanced World Transport a.s. (AWT) (relating to action 2015-CZ-TM-0330-M titled Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov) is null and void or order INEA to terminate the said grant agreement relating to Paskov;

               —

               annul or alternatively declare that the grant agreement under the connecting Europe facility (CEF) — transport sector No INEA/CEF/TRAN/M2015/1138714 concluded between Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and České přístavy, a.s. (Czech Ports) (relating to action 2015-CZ-TM-0406-W titled Intermodal Terminal Melnik, Phases 2 and 3) is null and void or order INEA to terminate the said grant agreement relating to Melnik;

               —

               order INEA and the Commission to pay jointly and severally the applicant’s costs connected with the legal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of fundamental principles of the EU Treaties relating to the protection of free market and competition on the internal market.

                           —

                           The applicant argues, inter alia, that establishing and ensuring the functioning of the internal market are fundamental principles and obligations upon which the Union is based (Article 26 TFEU). Any measures adopted by the Union must be always in compliance with this defining principle and any measures contrary to it must be always adopted proportionately and in subsidiary manner.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of Article 93 TFEU and further articles of the TFEU (Articles 3, 26, 93, 107, 119, 170(2), 171(1), Protocol 8 and its Article 1, Protocol 27).

                           —

                           The applicant argues, inter alia, that the contested measure represents aid, which does not meet the need of coordination of transport.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measure is in breach of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 and of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 and ancillary laws.

                           —

                           The applicant argues, inter alia, that the award of grants has not complied with all pre-requisite conditions (even if it were compliant with other EU laws), thus the grants should not have been awarded.


title: Case C-37/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Taxable transactions — Concept of ‘supply of services for consideration’ — Payment of fees, in respect of fair compensation, to organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights — Not included)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP)
   (Case C-37/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Taxable transactions - Concept of ‘supply of services for consideration’ - Payment of fees, in respect of fair compensation, to organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights - Not included))
   (2017/C 070/11)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Minister Finansów

      Respondent: Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP (SAWP)

      Intervening parties: Prokuratura Generalna, Stowarzyszenie Zbiorowego Zarządzania Prawami Autorskimi Twórców Dzieł Naukowych i Technicznych Kopipol, Stowarzyszenie Autorów i Wydawców Copyright Polska

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that holders of reproduction rights do not make a supply of services, within the meaning of that directive, to producers and importers of blank media and of recording and reproduction devices on whom organisations collectively managing copyright and related rights levy on behalf of those rightholders, but in their own name, fees in respect of the sale of those devices and media.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case T-449/10: Action brought on 20 September 2010 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/45

         Action brought on 20 September 2010 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission
   (Case T-449/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/90
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom), Transport & Environment (Brussels, Belgium), European Environmental Bureau (Brussels, Belgium) and BirdLife International (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Hockman, QC)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of 20 July 2010, the statutory negative reply under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), by which the Commission withheld from the applicant certain documents containing environmental information;

               —

               order the Commission to provide access to all requested documents identified in the course of its review of the 2 April 2010 application and in the confirmatory application of 8 June 2010 unless protected under absolute exception in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, without delay or redaction; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening party.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of the Commission’s implied decision, rejecting the applicants’ request of the access to certain documents containing environmental information relating to greenhouse gas emissions resulting of production of biofuels as established or held by the Commission in the framework of the elaborating of a report foreseen in Article 19(6) of Directive 2009/28/EC (2).
   In support of their application the applicants put forward the following pleas in law.
   First, they argue that the Commission has infringed Articles 7(3) and 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since it has failed to provide detailed reasons for requesting the extensions as granted on 27 April 2010 and 29 June 2010.
   Second, the applicants submit that the Commission has infringed Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since it has failed to provide detailed reasons for withholding each document. On 20 July 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission refused to release the responsive documents and provided no detailed reasons for withholding them as required under the regulation and case-law.
   Third, the applicants contend that the defendant has violated Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 since it has failed to carry out a concrete, individual assessment of the content of each document. On or before 20 July 2010, the date of expiration of the time-limit prescribed in the regulation, the Commission failed to perform, or make known, a concrete, individual assessment and determine whether the documents or any portion thereof fall under an exception to the general rule that all documents should be made accessible.
   Fourth, they claim that the Commission has acted in violation of Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and in violation of Article 6 of Regulation No 1367/2006 (3) as it has failed to fulfil legal obligations during the two-stage administrative procedure. The applicants submit that the Commission refused to release the documents or claim exceptions to justify their withholding.

      (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)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/45

         Removal from the Register of Case T-347/04 (1)

   (2005/C 182/83)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 24 May 2005, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-347/04, Pascal Millot v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-649/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others
   (Case C-649/16)
   (2017/C 104/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, Europa SC ZV II a.s., Europa SC LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., Europa SC BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o.

      Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., City of Banská Bystrica

      Question referred

   Is Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by the holders of shares in an insolvent company — as is the case of the first and second applicants — and by project companies in a business relationship with the insolvent company — as is the case of the third to seventh applicants — which is founded on a claim in tort for damages against members of a creditors’ committee in respect of voting impropriety regarding a restructuring plan in connection with insolvency proceedings concerns insolvency within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and is for that reason excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


title: Case T-666/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/14

         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)
   (Case T-666/11)
   2012/C 109/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Danuta Budziewska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Masłowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2011 in Case No R 1137/2010-3, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision annulling her design; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: design (representation of a puma) registered under No 697016-0001, published on behalf of the applicant in the Community Designs Bulletin of 2 May 2007.

      Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the Community design does not satisfy the definition of a design as set out in Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) and also fails to meet the requirements set out in Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002, in addition to other grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 25(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of that regulation.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of invalidity of the design.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by reason of the refusal to take account of the individual character of the design notified by the applicant.