title: Case T-439/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Purvis v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Additional pension scheme — Refusal to grant a voluntary additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum — Plea of illegality — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — Purvis v Parliament
   (Case T-439/09) (1)

   (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Additional pension scheme - Refusal to grant a voluntary additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum - Plea of illegality - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality)
   2011/C 347/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: John Robert Purvis (Saint Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, H. Krück, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and G. Corstens and subsequently, N. Lorenz, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 7 August 2009, which refused to grant the applicant his voluntary additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders John Robert Purvis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case T-389/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Earth Products v OHIM — Meynard Designs (EARTH)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/45

         Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Earth Products v OHIM — Meynard Designs (EARTH)
   (Case T-389/07)
   (2007/C 297/91)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Earth Products, Inc. (Carlsbad, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meynard Designs, Inc. (Waltham, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 August 2007 insofar as it has upheld the decision of the Opposition Division;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘EARTH’ for goods in class 25 — application No 2 907 608

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Meynard Designs, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited: The Community and national figurative mark ‘EARTH’ for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 25 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting trade marks are not visually or phonetically similar.


title: Case C-31/07: Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/25

         Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-31/07)
   (2007/C 56/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directives;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 4 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 167, p. 23.


title: Case C-359/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 27 June 2013 — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 27 June 2013 — B. Martens v Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
   (Case C-359/13)
   2013/C 274/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: B. Martens

      Respondent: Minister van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

      Questions referred

               1A.

               Must European Union law, in particular Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, (1) be interpreted as precluding the EU Member State — the Netherlands — from terminating the right to receive study finance for education or training outside the EU of an adult dependent child of a frontier worker with Netherlands nationality who lives in Belgium and works partly in the Netherlands and partly in Belgium, at the point in time at which the frontier work ceases and work is then performed exclusively in Belgium, on the ground that the child does not meet the requirement that she must have lived in the Netherlands for at least three of the six years preceding her enrolment at the educational institution concerned?

               1B.

               If Question 1A must be answered in the affirmative: does European Union law preclude the granting of study finance for a period shorter than the duration of the education or training for which study finance was granted, it being assumed that the other requirements governing eligibility for study finance have been satisfied?
               If, in answering Questions 1A and 1B, the Court of Justice should conclude that the legislation governing the right of freedom of movement for workers does not preclude a decision not to grant Ms Martens any study finance during the period from November 2008 to June 2011 or for part of that period:

               2.

               Must Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU be interpreted as precluding the EU Member State — the Netherlands — from not extending the study finance for education or training at an educational institution which is established in the Overseas Countries and Territories (Curaçao), to which there was an entitlement because the father of the person concerned worked in the Netherlands as a frontier worker, on the ground that the person concerned does not meet the requirement, applicable to all European Union citizens, including its own nationals, that she must have lived in the Netherlands for at least three of the six years preceding her enrolment for that education or training?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475).


title: Case C-495/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/17

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-495/13 P)
   2013/C 325/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 in Case R 411/2011-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is against the judgment of the General Court, by which it dismissed the appellant’s claim for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 1 March 2012 concerning opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.
   The appellant puts forward a single plea in law, namely misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. (1)

   In support of that plea, the appellant alleges that:

               The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘identity of the goods’ because it equated the goods ‘cigars’ with the generic term ‘tobacco products’. By so doing, the General Court unduly extended the scope of the opposing mark.

               The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘similarity of the goods’ because in assessing the similarity of the goods it also should not have sweepingly considered the individual goods ‘cigars’ to be similar to the generic term ‘smokers’ articles’.

               When comparing the signs, the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment theory because it sweepingly compared the components ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in so doing took no account of all the other components of the marks.

               In particular, by correctly applying the global assessment theory the General Court should have attributed more significance to several other components of the marks at issue, including the colour combination of the mark at issue and the ‘LA’ label of the opposing mark.

               The General Court also misapplied the principles established by the Court of Justice on conceptual similarity since it did not sufficiently take into account the different languages of the marks.

               Overall, the General Court thereby came to a wrong conclusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark; OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-26/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov (Appeal — Civil Service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection board — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 –Commission v Hristov
   (Case T-26/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Appointment - Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Composition of the pre-selection board - Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Impartiality))
   (2016/C 314/28)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers) (applicant at first instance); and European Medicines Agency (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents) (defendant at first instance)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011, by which it proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-303/07: Action brought on 7 August 2007 — Nölle v OHIM — Viña Carta Vieja (Puzzle)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/23

         Action brought on 7 August 2007 — Nölle v OHIM — Viña Carta Vieja (Puzzle)
   (Case T-303/07)
   (2007/C 235/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Jürgen Nölle (Rheinberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Reinartz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Viña Carta Vieja S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Reject in its entirety the opposition of 24 February 2005 brought by Viña Carta Vieja S.A. against the trade mark application made by the applicant on 20 February 2004 in relation to the word mark ‘Puzzle’, and in so doing annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2007 in Case R 911/2006-2 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 29 June 2006 No B 802 340;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred by any intervening party.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The Applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Puzzle’ for goods in classes 16, 32 and 33 (Application No 3 674 651).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viña Carta Vieja S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular the word mark ‘MONKEY PUZZLE’ for goods in class 33 (Community trade mark No 3 238 144).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: partial grant of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, to the extent that it granted the opposition for goods in class 32.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing trade marks.

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


title: Case C-230/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 12 May 2014  — Weltimmo s.r.o. v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság hatóság

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 12 May 2014 — Weltimmo s.r.o. v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság hatóság
   (Case C-230/14)
   2014/C 245/07
   Language of the case: Hungary

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Weltimmo s.r.o.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság hatóság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (‘the data protection directive’) be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of national law of a Member State are applicable in its territory to a situation in which a data controller runs a property-dealing website established only in another Member State and also advertises properties situated in the territory of that first Member State and the property owners have forwarded their personal data to a facility (server) for data storage and data processing belonging to the operator of the website in that other Member State?

               2.

               Can Article 4(1)(a) of the data protection directive, read in conjunction with recitals 18 to 20 of its preamble and Articles 1(2) and 28(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the Hungarian Data Protection and Freedom of Information Authority (a Magyar Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, ‘the data protection authority’) may not apply the Hungarian law on data protection, as national law, to an operator of a property dealing website established only in another Member State, even if it also advertises Hungarian property whose owners transfer the data relating to such property probably from Hungarian territory to a facility (server) for data storage and data processing belonging to the operator of the website?

               3.

               Is it significant for the purposes of interpretation that the service provided by the data controller who operates the website is directed at the territory of another Member State?

               4.

               Is it significant for the purposes of interpretation that the data relating to the properties in the other Member State and the personal data of the owners are uploaded in fact from the territory of that other Member State?

               5.

               Is it significant for the purposes of interpretation that the personal data relating to those properties are the personal data of citizens of another Member State?

               6.

               Is it significant for the purposes of interpretation that the owners of the undertaking established in Slovakia have their habitual residence in Hungary?

               7.

               If it appears from the answers to the above questions that the Hungarian data protection authority may act but must apply the law of the Member State of establishment and may not apply national law, must Article 28(6) of the data protection directive be interpreted as meaning that the Hungarian data protection authority may only exercise the powers provided for by Article 28(3) of the data protection directive in accordance with the provisions of the legislation of the Member State of establishment and accordingly may not impose a fine?

               8.

               May the term ‘adatfeldolgozás’ (technical manipulation of data) used in both Article 4(1)(a) and in Article 28(6) of the [Hungarian version of the] data protection directive [to translate ‘data processing’] be considered to be equivalent to the usual term for data processing, ‘adatkezelés’, used in connection with that directive?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case T-257/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Novomatic v OHIM — Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services (BLACK JACK TM) (Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BLACK JACK TM — Earlier Community word and figurative marks BLACK TRACK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Novomatic v OHIM — Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services (BLACK JACK TM)
   (Case T-257/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BLACK JACK TM - Earlier Community word and figurative marks BLACK TRACK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 138/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH (Meerbusch, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2014 (Case R 329/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH and Novomatic AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 February 2014 (Case R 329/2012-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-131/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Michele Ciampi v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Michele Ciampi v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina
   (Case C-131/07)
   (2007/C 117/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michele Ciampi

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the judgment in Case C-207/04 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the Italian legislature should have extended to men the advantageous age-limit that applies to women?

               2.

               Must it be held in the present case that a rate equal to half of the rate applied for the taxation of severance pay must be applied to sums received as voluntary redundancy incentives by men who have passed the age of 50?

               3.

               Given that amounts paid by way of personal income tax do not form part of the taxpayer's salary since they are not paid by the employer in respect of the employment, and given that an amount paid by an employer to an employee as an incentive is not in the nature of pay, is it consistent with Community law to rule that the application of different age limits — namely 50 years of age for women and 55 years of age for men — is contrary to Community law, in light of the fact that Directive No 79/7 (2) permits the Member States to preserve different pensionable ages?

               4.

               Must Community law (Council Directive 76/207/EEC (3) of 9 February 1976, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex) be interpreted as precluding — or as not precluding — application of the relevant national rules that gave rise to the present case, with the effect that the national legislation (Article 17(4a) (now Article 19(4a) of DPR No 917/86) must be regarded as incompatible — or compatible — with Community law?

      (1)  Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona [2005] ECR I-7453.

      (2)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

      (3)  OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.


title: Case F-5/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2014  — Da Cunha Almeida v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Verbal reasoning test — Plea of illegality of the competition notice — Choice of the second language from three languages — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/73

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2014 — Da Cunha Almeida v Commission
   (Case F-5/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Verbal reasoning test - Plea of illegality of the competition notice - Choice of the second language from three languages - Principle of non-discrimination))
   2014/C 315/122
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Paulo Jorge Da Cunha Almeida (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, solicitor, G. Pandey and M. Gambardella, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision not to include the applicant in the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/205/10.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the selection board of Competition EPSO/AD/205/10 of 9 March 2012, transmitted by the European Personnel Selection Office, refusing the request of Mr Da Cunha Almeida for review, following his exclusion from the reserve list of the competition by a decision of 23 December 2011.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Da Cunha Almeida.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013, p. 29.


title: Case T-309/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Mat Foundries Europe v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/58

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Mat Foundries Europe v Commission
   (Case T-309/14)
   2014/C 223/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mat Foundries Europe GmbH (Neunkirchen, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Case T-90/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Fédération des industries condimentaires de France and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Incompatibility of the Community prohibition on the importation of meat containing substances having a hormonal action with the rules of the World Trade Association (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of a surcharge on the import of products from the Community pursuant to WTO authorisation — Termination by the Commission of proceedings to investigate trade barriers — Application for compensation of groups of Community exporters adversely affected by the surcharge)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Fédération des industries condimentaires de France and Others v Commission
   (Case T-90/03) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Incompatibility of the Community prohibition on the importation of meat containing substances having a hormonal action with the rules of the World Trade Association (WTO) - Imposition by the United States of America of a surcharge on the import of products from the Community pursuant to WTO authorisation - Termination by the Commission of proceedings to investigate trade barriers - Application for compensation of groups of Community exporters adversely affected by the surcharge)
   (2007/C 199/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Fédération des industries condimentaires de France (FICF) (Paris, France); the Confédération Générale des producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de Roquefort (Millau, France); Comité économique agricole régional fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) (Morlaix, France); and Comité interprofessionnel des palmipèdes à foie gras (CIFOG) (Paris, France) (represented by: initially, M. Jacquot and O. Prost, and subsequently, O. Prost, K. Lentz, E. Berthelot and M. Baudin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Kuijper, C. Brown and G. Boudot, acting as Agents)

      Party intervening in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, E. Braquehais Conesa, and subsequently, J. Rodriguez Cárcamo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by the Commission's purportedly unlawful action in the face of retaliatory trade measures taken by the United States of America in the so-called case on ‘beef having a hormonal action’.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.


title: Case T-241/09: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Nikolaou v Court of Auditors (Non-contractual liability — Court of Auditors — Conduct of internal investigations — Personal data — Illegality — Causal link — Limitation period)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Nikolaou v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-241/09) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Court of Auditors - Conduct of internal investigations - Personal data - Illegality - Causal link - Limitation period)
   2013/C 101/34
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Kalliopi Nikolaou (Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and G. Douka, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and J.-M. Stenier, Agents, and by P. Tridimas)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of irregularities and infringements of European Union law that the Court of Auditors allegedly committed in the context of an internal investigation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Kalliopi Nikolaou to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2001 in Case T-161/00 Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment and damages — Withdrawal of the contested decision in the course of proceedings — Adoption of a new decision — No need to give a ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
10.11.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 317/25
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 July 2001                                                             of 5 July 2001
in Case T-161/00 Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of
                                                                          in Case T-182/00 Marco Pannella v European Parliament (1)
                 the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Action for annulment and damages — With-                     (Expenses and allowances of Members of the European
drawal of the contested decision in the course of proceedings             Parliament — Absence from Parliamentary sessions —
— Adoption of a new decision — No need to give a ruling                   Justification — Rejection of application — Withdrawal of
                        — Inadmissibility)                                the contested measure — No need to give a ruling —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
                         (2001/C 317/49)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/50)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-161/00: Vassilios Tsarnavas, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for               In Case T-182/00: Marco Pannella, a Member of the European
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                 Parliament, residing in Rome, represented by P.A.M. Ferrari,
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) —                  avvocato, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
application, in the first place, for annulment of the decision of         European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and A. Caiola) —
13 August 1999 not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4                  application for annulment of the decision of the College of
in the promotions for 1999 and for annulment of the                       Quaestors of the European Parliament of 15 March 2000,
Commission’s decision of 22 September 2000 refusing to                    notified to the applicant by letter of 17 April 2000, rejecting
promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the promotions for                  the applicant’s request to be allowed to justify his absence
1999 and, second, for reparation of alleged non-material                  during the period of the session of the European Parliament
damage — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                    from 17 to 21 January 2000, pursuant to Article 28(2) of the
composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura              regulations governing the expenses and allowances of Mem-
Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 July            bers of the European Parliament — the Court of First Instance
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                          (Second Chamber), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President,
                                                                          A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
                                                                          an order on 5 July 2001, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
1.    There is no longer any need to give a ruling on the forms of
      order seeking annulment.
                                                                          1.    There is no need to give a ruling in the present action.
2.    The remainder of the action is inadmissible.
                                                                          2.    The Parliament shall bear its own costs together with those of
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs and those incurred by             the applicant.
      the applicant up to 10 November 2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.


title: Case C-40/06: Order of the Court of 9 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München, Germany) — Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Capsules containing primarily melatonin — Medicaments)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/12

         Order of the Court of 9 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München, Germany) — Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   (Case C-40/06) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Capsules containing primarily melatonin - Medicaments)
   (2007/C 56/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München
   Parties in the main proceedings

      Applicant: Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH

      Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) — Heading 3004 (medicaments) and heading 2106 (food preparations) of the Combined Nomenclature — Classification of melatonin capsules put up as dietary supplements but which may be supplied only by pharmacies and on prescription — Twinlab Melatonin Caps
   Operative part of the order
   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that capsules containing primarily melatonin such as those in issue in the main proceedings fall under tariff heading 3004.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case F-153/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — ZZ and Others v EEAS

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/44

         Action brought on 28 December 2015 — ZZ and Others v EEAS
   (Case F-153/15)
   (2016/C 111/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the EEAS, in the applicants’ salary slips, in so far as it constitutes the first application of the reduction from 25 % to 20 % of the allowance for living conditions, applying a decision of the Chief Operating Officer.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the decision of 23 February 2015 of the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS inapplicable to the applicants;

               —

               Consequently, annul their salary slips for March 2015 and those issued subsequently, in so far as they apply an ALC of 20 %;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 May 2000 in Case C-58/99 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Privatisation of public undertakings — Grant of special powers)

text:
C 247/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.8.2000
3.    Neither Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1995 on               of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings held by the
      waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of                  State and public bodies in joint stock companies (GURI
      18 March 1991, nor Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93                 No 177 of 30 July 1994), and the decrees concerning the
      of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and monitoring of               ‘special powers’ laid down in the case of the privatisation of
      shipments of waste within, into and out of the European               ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA, the Italian Republic has failed
      Community requires that Member States conclude contracts              to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC
      with all the undertakings authorised, within the meaning of           Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and
      Article 10 of that directive, to receive and recover environmen-      Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — the Court
      tally non-hazardous building waste.                                   composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O Ed-
                                                                            ward, L Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers,
4.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive              P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it allows a              G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;
      Member State to take measures in relation to the shipment of          J. Misco, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
      waste, including measures which prohibit the shipment of non-         Administrator, for the Registrar has given a judgment on
      hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if the shipment       23 May 2000 in which it:
      is not in accordance with its waste management plan, on
      condition that that plan is compatible with the rules of the          1.    Declares that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the consoli-
      Treaty and of that directive.                                               dated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted,
                                                                                after amendment, into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing
5.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive                    for acceleration of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer             held by the State and public bodies in joint stock companies,
      on individuals any right on which they might rely before the                and the decrees concerning the ‘special powers’ laid down in the
      national courts for the purpose of challenging a measure                    case of the privatisation of ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA,
      designed to prevent movements of waste which are not in                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      accordance with a waste management plan, on the ground that                 Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      that measure has not been notified to the Commission.                       Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and Article 73b of the EC Treaty
                                                                                (now Article 56 EC);
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                  2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 23 May 2000
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-58/99 Commission of the European Communi-                                                   of 25 May 2000
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            in Case C-82/98 P, Max Kögler v Court of Justice of the
(Privatisation of public undertakings — Grant of special                    European Communities and Council of the European
                               powers)                                                                     Union (1)
                          (2000/C 247/02)                                   (Appeal — Staff Case — Weighting applicable to retirement
                                                                                pension)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                   (2000/C 247/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive version will be published in the
In Case C-58/99, Commission of the European Communities                                            European Court Reports)
(Agents: A. Aresu and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agents:
Professor U. Leanza and I.M. Braguglia) — Application for a                 In Case T-95/98: Max Kögler, a former official of the Court of
declaration that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the                    Justice of the European Communities, resident at Konz,
consolidated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994                       Germany, represented by T. Baltes, of the Trier Bar, with an
(GURI No 126 of 1 June 1994), converted, after amendment,                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing for acceleration                 R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge v Court of Justice of the European


title: Case T-139/13: Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Eltek/OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/21

         Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Eltek/OHIM — Eltec Elektronik (ELTEK)
   (Case T-139/13)
   2013/C 147/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eltek SpA (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eltec Elektronik AG (Mainz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Board of Appeal’s decision of 7 January 2013 (as rectified by corrigendum of 22 January 2013) notified and received on 10 January 2013 in Case R 511/2012-1, pertaining to opposition proceedings No B 992 851, and application for Community trade mark registration no. 4 368 064, by reason of the full satisfaction of all the requirements for valid registration of each product;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs with regard to the proceedings before the Court and order the opponent to pay the costs with regard to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELTEK’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 4 368 064

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark and International registration ‘ELTEC’, designating the Benelux, Spain, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially dismissed the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and rejected the Community trade mark applied for with respect to certain goods of class 9

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99: Carla Giulietti and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Action for annulment — Pre-selection procedure — Conduct of the tests — Principle of equal treatment — Obligation to provide reasons — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of sound administration — Consequences for the subsequent conduct of the competition)

text:
C 212/22              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                    the ECSC Treaty (Case IV/36.069 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung
                    judicial year 2000/2001                             Stahl) (OJ 1998 L 1, p. 10) — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                        Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and
                                                                        M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                        (2001/C 212/39)
                                                                        has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it:
At its Plenary Conference held on 3 July 2001 the Court of              1.     Annuls Commission Decision 98/4/ECSC of 26 November
First Instance took formal note of the fact that, owing to the                 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
judicial vacation, the oath-taking ceremony before the Court                   ECSC Treaty (Case IV/36.069 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung
of Justice for the new member of the Court of First Instance                   Stahl);
could not take place until after the judicial vacation and that
consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of                 2.     Orders the Commission to pay both its own costs and those of
Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the third                 the applicants.
paragraph of Article 5 of the EAEC Statute of the Court of
Justice and the third paragraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Statute
of the Court of Justice, the decision of 4 July 2000 (OJ C 259          (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.98.
of 9 September 2000) on the designation of the Presidents of
Chambers, the composition of the Chambers and the assign-
ment of cases to them would continue to apply and that the
President of the Court, Mr Vesterdorf, would continue to
exercise the presidency of the Court of First Instance.
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 2 May 2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99: Carla Giulietti and
                                                                          Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                        of 5 April 2001
                                                                        (Officials — Competition — Action for annulment — Pre-
in Case T-16/98 Wirstschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others                selection procedure — Conduct of the tests — Principle of
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)                     equal treatment — Obligation to provide reasons — Prin-
                                                                        ciple of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle
(Competition — ECSC — Information exchange agreement                    of sound administration — Consequences for the subsequent
— Notification — Commission decision departing from the                                     conduct of the competition)
      content of the Agreement — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/41)
                        (2001/C 212/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99: Carla Giulietti, Ana
In Case T-16/98 Wirstschaftsvereinigung Stahl, established              Caprile, residing in Brussels, Fabrizio Dell’Olio, residing in
in Düsseldorf (Germany), AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke,                  Bari, Italy, Konrad Fuhrmann, Olivier Radelet, residing in
established in Dillingen (Germany), EKO Stahl GmbH, estab-              Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats,
lished in Eisenhüttenstadt (Germany), Krupp Thyssen Nirosta             with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
GmbH, established in Bochum (Germany), Thyssen Krupp                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia,
Stahl GmbH, established in Duisburg (Germany), Salzgitter               J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for annulment,
AG (formerly Preussag Stahl AG), established in Salzgitter              first, of the decision taken by the selection board in compe-
(Germany), Stahlwerke Bremen GmbH, established in Bremen                tition COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicants from the tests
(Germany), Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg, rep-              subsequent to the pre-selection tests and, second, of all of the
resented by J. Sedemund, lawyer, with an address for service in         steps taken and acts done subsequently in the procedure
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-                 relating that competition — the Court of First Instance (Second
ties (Agents: K. Wiedner, and H.-J. Freund) — application for           Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki
annulment of Commission Decision 98/4/ECSC of 26 Novem-                 and J. Pirrung, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
ber 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of             Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 28.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/23
1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition             1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament not to promote the
      COM/A/10/98 in so far as it excludes Ms Caprile and                         applicant to Grade A 4 during the 1998 promotion procedure;
      Mr Radelet from the subsequent tests in competition
      COM/A/10/98. Dismisses the claims of Ms Caprile and                   2.    Dismisses the application for compensation;
      Mr Radelet that all of the acts subsequent to that decision
      in connection with competition COM/A/10/98 should be                  3.    Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
      annulled;
2.    Dismisses the actions brought by Ms Giulietti, Mr Dell’Olio           (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.99.
      and Mr Fuhrmann;
3.    In Case T-174/99, orders the Commission to pay half of the
      applicants’ costs and to bear the entirety of its own costs;
4.    In Case T-167/99, orders each party to bear its own costs,
      including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.                                                                             of 5 April 2001
                                                                            in Case T-82/00 BIC SA and Others v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                            (Anti-dumping — Pocket lighters originating in Japan —
                                                                            Regulation repealing anti-dumping duties — Obligation to
                                                                                state reasons — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/43)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 8 May 2001                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-82/00 BIC SA, established in Clichy (France),
in Case T-182/99 Georges Caravelis v European Parlia-                       Flamagas SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Swedish Match
                               ment (1)                                     SA, established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                            A. Vianello, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt,
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of                        F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi and G.M. Berrisch) — application for
comparative merits — Action for annulment and compen-                       annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2000 of
                                sation)                                     24 January 2000 repealing Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping
                                                                            duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint
                          (2001/C 212/42)
                                                                            lighters originating in Japan (OJ 2000 L 22, p. 16) — the Court
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                            composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki,
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                          M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 April 2001,
                                                                            in which it:
In Case T-182/99 Georges Caravelis, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by                  1.    Dismisses the application;
C. Tagaras, avocat, against European Parliament (Agents:
Y. Pantalis and N. Korogiannakis) — application for annulment               2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
of the Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to
Grade A 4 during the 1998 promotion procedure and also for
compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 8 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-29/04: Action brought on 26 January 2004 by Castellblanch, S.A., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 71/42                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         20.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:           Action brought on 26 January 2004 by Castellblanch,
                                                                        S.A., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
—     annul the decision by OHIM (Second Board of Appeal) of
      10 November 2003 in case R 0285/2002-2, which by
      dismissing the applicant’s appeal gives grounds for a                                      (Case T-29/04)
      future right to Community trade mark No 1.155.985,
      ‘THE OBSERVER’, in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41;
                                                                                (2004/C 71/73)
—     refuse registration to Community mark No 1.155.985
      ‘THE OBSERVER’ in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41;                  (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was
                                                                                submitted: English)
—     order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the
      costs.
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        26 January 2004 by Castellblanch, S.A., Sant Sadurni d’Anoia,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Spain, represented by Mr F. de Visscher, Mr E. Cornu, Mr E. De
                                                                        Gryse and Ms D. Moreau, lawyers. Champagne Louis Roederer
                                                                        S.A. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
                                                                        Appeal.
Applicant for the Com-        Guardian Newspaper Limited
munity trade mark:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘THE OBSERVER’ —
applied for:                  Application No 1.155.985, for             —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                              goods and services in Classes 9,                Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                              16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38 and 41               17 November 2003;
Proprietor of the oppos-      Applicant                                 —     Order the OHIM to pay the costs.
ing trade mark or sign:
Opposing trade mark or        Spanish       figurative      mark
sign:                         (No 953.859) and word mark                Pleas in law and main arguments
                              (No 2.116.030) for all goods and
                              services in Classes 18, 25, 28, 35
                              and 41                                    Applicant for the Com-        Castellblanch S.A.
                                                                        munity trade mark:
Decision of the Oppo-         Dismissal of the opposition
                                                                        Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘CRISTAL CAS-
sition Division:
                                                                        sought:                       TELLBLANCH’ for goods in
                                                                                class 33 (wine)
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                 Proprietor of mark or         CHAMPAGNE LOUIS ROEDE-
                                                                        sign cited in the oppo-       RER, S.A.
                                                                        sition proceedings:
Pleas in law:                 —    Sufficient use of the two
                                   marks which form the basis           Mark or sign cited in         National word mark ‘CRISTAL’
                                   for the opposition                   opposition:                   for goods in class 33 (champagne,
                              —    Incorrect application of                                           sparkling wines)
                                   Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of
                                   Regulation (EC) No 40/94.            Decision of the Oppo-         Registration refused
                                                                        sition Division:
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Appeal rejected
                                                                        Appeal:
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 71/43
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of articles 43 and             2001 (1). According to the applicant article 4 paragraph 2 of
                              15 of Regulation 40/94 (1).                 Regulation 1049/2001 does not justify a blanket exclusion of
                                                                          the Commission’s pleadings from the principle of open access
                                                                          to Community documents, nor does it give the Commission
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           the right to refuse access to its pleadings merely because the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                   matter itself or related proceedings are still pending.
                                                                          (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,
                                                                              Official Journal L 145, 31/05/2001 P. 43-48.
Action brought on 2 February 2004 by Association de la
Presse Internationale a.s.b.l. (‘API’) against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-89/02 (1)
                         (Case T-36/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/75)
                         (2004/C 71/74)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          By order of 25 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                T-89/02: Check Point Softward Limited v Office for the
European Communities on 2 February 2004 by Association                    Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
de la Presse Internationale a.s.b.l. (‘API’), Brussels, Belguim,          Design) (OHIM).
represented by Mr S. Völcker, Mr F. Louis and Mr J. Heithecker,
lawyers.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul Commission Decision D(2003) 30621 of 20 Nov-
      ember 2003 in its entirety and;
—     Order the Commission to bear the costs.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-307/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/76)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant is a non-profit organisation of foreign journalists
based in Belgium, aiming to assist its members in reporting
back to their home countries about the European Union. It                 By order of 19 November 2003 the President of the Second
applied to the Commission for access to all the submissions               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
made by the Commission in the course of certain proceedings               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
before the European Court of Justice and the European Court               T-307/02: Altana Pharma AG v Office for the Harmonisation
of First Instance. Such access was denied by the contested                of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
decision.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
In support of its application the applicant invokes an infringe-
ment of Articles 2 and 4, paragraph 2, of Regulation 1049/


               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-67/03 (1)

   (2005/C 6/60)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 6 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-67/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Removal from the register of C-152/96

text:
8 . 2 . 97           I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 40/ 15
from the register of Case C-134/96 : Commission of the                removal from the register of Case C-l 79/96 : Commission
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
                                                                      Luxembourg.
(') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-l 52/96 (')                           Removal from the register of C-243/96 f 1 )
                             97/C 40/35 )                                                         ( 97/C 40/37 )
                                                                      By order of 19 November 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 12 September 1996 the President of the Court              of Justice of the Communities ordered the removal from
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                the register of Case C-243/96 : Commission of the
removal from the register of Case C-l 52/96 : Commission              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg .                                                          (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-265/96 f 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/38 )
            Removal from the register of C-l 79/96 (')                By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
                             97/C 40/36 )                             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case C-265/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                      of 11 December 1996                             Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
                                                                      Marie-Adelaide v. European Community, represented by 1 .
in Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG and Others v. Council of               Council of the European Union (Agents : Jean-Paul Jacque,
the European Union and Commission of the European                     Arthur Brautigam , Jürgen Huber and Anna Lo Monaco )
                          Communities C )                             and 2 . Commission of the European Communities
 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                       ( Agents : Peter Gilsdorf and Ulrich Wölker ), supported by
           Import arrangements — Action for damages)                  the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige Belliard and Gautier
                                                                       Mignot) and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                            ( 97/C 40/39 )                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially S. Lucinda Hudson,
                                                                       then Lindsey Nicoll ) — application for an order requiring
                 (Language of the case: German)                        the European Community, represented by the Council and
                                                                       the Commission , to pay compensation for damage alleged
                                                                       to have been incurred as a result of the adoption of
 In Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG, established at Bremen                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
 ( Germany), Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co .                  1993 on the common organization of the market in
 GmbH, established at Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-                     bananas ( OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ), the Court
 Companie GmbH, established at Hamburg ( Germany ),                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
 Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft mbH & Co . KG,                     K. Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P.
 established at Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH ,                      Lindh , J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 established at Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport                    Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 , in
 Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., established at Hamburg and                which it :
 Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established at Hamburg,
 represented by Erik A. Undritz and Gerrit Schohe,                      1 . dismisses the application;


               23.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/70

         Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-5/04)
   (2004/C 319/12)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS, represented by Jan Magne Langseth, Advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Dronning Mauds gt. 11, P.b. 2444 Solli, N-0201 Oslo.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

               2.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL (the ‘Decision’) concludes that the Norwegian measure exempting the manufacturing and the mining industries from the tax on electricity consumption constitutes State aid and that it constitutes new aid as from 1 January 2002.

               —

               The Decision concludes that the relevant measures are incompatible with the EEA Agreement and the incompatible aid must be recovered from the aid recipients.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority has not made a correct assessment of Article 61(1) EEA.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority misuses its powers under the EEA Agreement by its incorrect application of Article 61(3) EEA and the Environmental Guidelines.

               —

               There is no legal basis for recovery of the alleged aid from the applicants.


title: Case T-92/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2006 — movingpeople.net International BV v OHIM — Schäfer (movingpeople.net) (Community trade mark — Community figurative trade mark movingpeople.net — Opposition of the proprietor of the national word mark MOVING PEOPLE — Partial refusal of registration — Applicant's acquisition of the earlier trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2006 — movingpeople.net International BV v OHIM — Schäfer (movingpeople.net)
   (Case T-92/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Community figurative trade mark movingpeople.net - Opposition of the proprietor of the national word mark MOVING PEOPLE - Partial refusal of registration - Applicant's acquisition of the earlier trade mark - No need to adjudicate)
   (2007/C 56/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: movingpeople.net International BV (Helmond, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van Roeyen and T. Berendsen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Thomas Schäfer (Groß Schlamin, Schashagen, Germany) (represented by: D. Rohmeyer, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2004 (Case R 410/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Thomas Schäfer and movingpeople.net International BV
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.

               3.

               The intervener is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-114/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 February 2016 — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/25

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 February 2016 — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
      (Case C-114/16)
      (2016/C 211/31)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Kúria

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft.

         Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

         Question referred

      Are the provisions of Articles 167, 168, 178 and 179 of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted to the effect that the revenue authority is required to recognise, in the course of a tax audit, a taxable person’s right of deduction in circumstances in which, although there is no indication in the taxable person’s VAT return of the tax paid, the taxable person possesses invoices consistent with that directive and, during the audit, requests recognition of its right of deduction?

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


title: Case T-777/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Fon Wireless v EUIPO — Henniger (Neofon) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Neofon — Earlier national word mark FON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Fon Wireless v EUIPO — Henniger (Neofon)
      (Case T-777/14) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Neofon - Earlier national word mark FON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 211/58)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Andreas Henniger (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: T. von Groll-Schacht, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2014 (Case R 2519/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fon Wireless Ltd and Andreas Henniger.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 September 2014 (Case R 2519/2013-4);

                  2.

                  Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fon Wireless Ltd;

                  3.

                  Orders Andreas Henniger to bear his own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.