title: Case T-136/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 2009 — Aurelia Finance v OHIM (AURELIA) (Community trade mark — Community word mark AURELIA — Failure to pay renewal fee — Removal of trade mark from register on expiry of registration — Application for restitutio in integrum)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 2009 — Aurelia Finance v OHIM (AURELIA)
   (Case T-136/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Community word mark AURELIA - Failure to pay renewal fee - Removal of trade mark from register on expiry of registration - Application for restitutio in integrum)
   2009/C 153/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aurelia Finance SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by M. Elmslie, Solicitor, and N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2008 (Case R 1214/2007-1), concerning the application for restitutio in integrum lodged by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Aurelia Finance SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case F-97/08: Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/76

         Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament
   (Case F-97/08)
   (2009/C 44/136)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paulette Füller-Tomlinson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision setting the proportion of partial permanent invalidity attributable to occupational disease at 20 %, and alternatively an order that the defendant pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 9 April 2008 of the Head of the Pensions and Social Insurance Unit, setting, in Article 3, the proportion of partial permanent invalidity attributable to occupational disease at 20 %;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               alternatively, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 12 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case F-24/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/55

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-24/14)
   2014/C 175/79
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report covering the period from 1st October 2011 to 31st December 2012 and claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appraisal report issued to the applicant in respect of the period from 1st October 2011 to 31st December 2012 as finalized and signed by the Reporting Officer;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation at the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of 500 Euro — to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by him as a result of the contested Appraisal Report;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case C-140/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court dated 17 December 2001, in the case of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd

text:
15.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/23
     in respect of which registration is sought, the same type                income-based jobseeker’s allowance to a person in the
     of goods are commonly found in the trade and the nature                  circumstances of the claimant in the present case?
     of the marks influences the perception of the marks by
     the targeted public.
—    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:            (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
     the requirements imposed by the Court of First Instance                L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 475).
     with respect to distinctiveness are too stringent.                 (2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for workers of Member States and their families
                                                                            (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 485).
—    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
     the Court of First Instance imposes incorrect requirements
     with respect to distinctiveness which are not provided for
     in the Regulation by presuming, without any factual
     basis, that the existence — assumed by it — of ‘a wide
     variety of designs’ and the average consumer’s familiarity
     with shapes similar to those at issue influence distinc-
     tiveness.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark, OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
                                                                        by order of that court dated 17 December 2001, in the
                                                                        case of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
                                                                        and Food, Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and
                                                                        others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit
                                                                                and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security
Commissioners, London, by order dated 28 March 2002,
in the case of Brian Francis Collins against Secretary of                                          (Case C-140/02)
                  State for Work and Pensions
                          (Case C-138/02)                                                          (2002/C 144/40)
                         (2002/C 144/39)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
European Communities by an order of the Social Security
                                                                        dated 17 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Commissioners, London, dated 28 March 2002, which was
                                                                        Registry on 16 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 2002, for a
                                                                        of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Francis Collins and
                                                                        Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and others, Inter-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the following
                                                                        veners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable
questions:
                                                                        (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd, on the following questions:
1.   Is a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the
     present case a worker for the purposes of Regulation               1.    Whether, where citrus fruit originating in one third
     No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968?                        country has been shipped to another third country, the
                                                                              special requirement that the packaging shall bear an
2.   If the answer to question 1 is not in the affirmative, does              appropriate origin mark pursuant to item 16.1 of
     a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the                     Annex IVA of Directive 77/93/EEC, now Directive 2000/
     present case have a right to reside in the United Kingdom                29/EC (1), can only be fulfilled in the country of origin or
     pursuant to Directive No 68/360 (2) of the Council of                    whether it may alternatively be fulfilled in such other
     15 October 1968?                                                         third country?
3.   If the answers to both questions 1 and 2 are not in the
     affirmative, do any provisions or principles of European           2.    Whether the official statement required by items 16.2 to
     Community law require the payment of a social security                   16.4 of Directive 2000/29/EC as to the country of origin
     benefit with conditions of entitlement like those for                    must be made by an official in the country of origin or
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
      whether it may be made by an official in such other third                 —     fails to provide that the conservation measures
      country?                                                                        referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 apply
                                                                                to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and
(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective                    7 of Directive 92/43/EEC;
    measures against the introduction into the Community of organ-
    isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
    within the Community OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.
                                                                          —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Article 6(3) of the directive provides that any plan or project
                                                                          which, either individually or in combination with other plans
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of                      or projects, has a significant effect on a site of Community
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   importance falls within the directive’s scope. The word ‘any’
                                                                          used by the Community legislator leaves no doubt that it refers
                                                                          to all projects, even if not covered by the directives on the
                                                                          assessment of environmental impact and even if not directly
                          (Case C-143/02)
                                                                          connected with or necessary to the management of the site.
                          (2002/C 144/41)
                                                                          However, Article 5(3) of Presidential Decree 357/97 limits the
                                                                          decree’s scope to a restricted list of projects expressly men-
                                                                          tioned therein so that a whole series of projects of various
                                                                          kinds are excluded even though they are likely to have a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             significant effect on sites of Community importance.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
acting as Agents.                                                         Under Article 6 of the Italian decree, which transposes Article 7
                                                                          of the directive, only the obligations arising under Article 4(2)
                                                                          and (3) and Article 5 and not those arising under Article 4(1)
                                                                          of the decree — which transposes Article 6(2) of the directive
                                                                          — apply to special protection areas.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by adopting legislating implementing Direc-           It follows that the Italian legislation at issue imposes no
      tive 92/43/EEC (1) which:                                           obligation on the competent Italian authorities to take steps,
                                                                          in relation to special protection areas, to avoid the deterioration
                                                                          of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as the
      —     fails to include within the scope of the laws on the          disturbance of the species for which the areas have been
            assessment of effects on the environment projects             designated.
            other than those listed in the Italian legislation
            implementing directives on environmental impact
            that are nevertheless likely to have a significant
            effect on sites of Community importance,                      Lastly, Decree 357/97 wholly fails to transpose the provisions
                                                                          of Article 5(4) of the directive.
      —     fails to impose upon the competent Italian auth-
            orities any obligation to take appropriate steps in
            respect of special protection areas to avoid the              The implication of this is that, should the Commission, on
            deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats         finding an omission from the national list of a Member State,
            of species or disturbance of the species for which            initiate a bilateral consultation procedure with that Member
            the areas were designated, in so far as such disturb-         State and, failing to resolve the dispute within a period of six
            ance could be significant in relation to the objectives       months, forward to the Council a proposal relating to the
            of the directive,                                             selection of the site in question as a site of Community


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) of 12 November 1996 in Case T-47/96: Syndicat départemental de défense du droit des agriculteurs (SDDDA) v. Commission of the European Communities (Commission's refusal to commence the infringement procedure - Action for failure to act - Inadmissibility)

text:
 11 . 1 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 9 / 15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht              Is the first subparagraph of Article 3a ( 3 ) of Regulation
Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 13 November 1996,                ( EEC ) No 1546/88 ( ! ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC )
in the case of Florian Vorderbrüggen v. Hauptzollamt                   No 1033/89 (2 ), valid in so far as it requires, over and
                                 Bielefeld                             above the requirements laid down in the first sentence of
                           ( Case C-374/96                             Article 3a ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 ( 3 ), as
                                                                       amended by Regulation ( EEC) No 764/89 ( 4 ) and by
                              ( 97/C 9/25 )                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( 5 ), that the producer must
                                                                       actually have resumed direct sales and/or deliveries of milk
                                                                       for at least 12 months ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                     (1)  OJ No  L 139, 4. 6 . 1988 , p. 12 .
 ( Finance Court) Düsseldorf of 13 November 1996,                      (2 ) OJ No  L 110, 21 . 4. 1989, p. 27.
received at the Court Registry on 26 November 1996, for                (3 ) OJ No  L 90, 1 . 4. 1984, p. 13 .
a preliminary ruling in the case of Florian Vorderbrüggen              (4)  OJ No  L 84 , 29 . 3 . 1989 , p . 2 .
v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld on the following question :                  (5)  OJ No  L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p. 35 .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 November 1996
                       of 8 November 1996
                                                                       in Case T-47/96: Syndicat départemental de défense du
in Case T-120/89(92 ): Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG                  droit des agriculteurs ( SDDDA ) v. Commission of the
( which has become Preussag Stahl AG ) v. Commission of                                    European Communities ( x )
                 the European Communities 0 )
                                                                       (Commission 's refusal to commence the infringement
                        (Taxation of costs)                              procedure — Action for failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/27 )
                              ( 97/C 9/26 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)                         In Case T-47/96 : the Syndicat départemental de défense du
                                                                       droit des agriculteurs ( SDDDA ), whose registered office is
                                                                       at Beaucaire ( France ), represented initially by Olivier
                                                                       Girard, of the Nîmes Bar, and subsequently by Maryse
In Case T-120/89(92 ): Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG
                                                                       Joissains-Masini, of the Aix-en-Provence Bar, against the
(which has become Preussag Stahl AG ), represented by
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Denise
Messrs Deringer, Tessin, Herrmann and Sedemund, of the
                                                                       Sorasio ) — application pursuant to Article 175 of the EC
Berlin Bar, against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Treaty for a declaration that, by not initiating the
Communities ( Agent: Götz zur Hausen ) — application for
                                                                       procedure pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty in
taxation of the costs payable by the defendant to the
                                                                       respect of the French Republic, the Commission failed to
applicant pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                       act — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),
Instance of 27 June 1991 in Case T-120/89 Stahlwerke
                                                                       composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, H. Kirschner and
Peine-Salzgitter AG v. Commission [ 1991 ] ECR 11-279 —
                                                                       A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
the Court of First Instance, composed of R. García-
                                                                       order on 12 November 1996 , the operative part of which
Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.              is as follows :
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 November 1996, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                       2 . There is no need to take a decision on the applications
The total costs payable by the Commission to Stahlwerke                     to intervene .
Peine-Salzgitter AG (PSAG) are fixed in the sum of
DM 160 000 .                                                           3 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. The
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic are each
                                                                            ordered to bear their own costs.
( ] ) OJ No C 207, 12 . 8 . 1989 , p . 15 .
                                                                       0 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 , p . 32 .


title: Case T-156/01: Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 259/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.9.2001
Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distilleria                    this and other efforts, the proper fulfilment of the requirements
F. Palma SpA against Commission of the European Com-                       for performance laid down by the European Commission was
                            munities                                       hindered by new and unforeseeable obstacles.
                         (Case T-154/01)
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that the
                                                                           contested decision is contrary to the principle exonerating
                         (2001/C 259/24)                                   economic operators on grounds of ‘force majeure’, which is
                                                                           expressly referred to in Regulation No 416/96 (3). Thus, the
                                                                           defendant showed itself to have been perfectly aware of having
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        changed both times and means of giving effect to the tender
                                                                           offer by two subsequent regulations. Notwithstanding all this,
                                                                           and despite reasons beyond the control of the undertaking
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  which was awarded the tender, the Commission, ex abrupto,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 interpreted particularly strictly the conditions laid down, most
European Communities on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distil-                  recently, in Regulation No 416/96.
leria F. Palma SpA, represented by Francesco Caruso, lawyer.
                                                                           Finally, the extreme, unreasonable and disproportionate nature
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           of the contested decision is even more evident on careful
                                                                           consideration of the reason for the substantial security (a hefty
—     order the Commission to make good the damage allegedly               ECU 90 per hectolitre of alcohol), which the applicant lodged
      suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s            at the time, which was to guarantee that it had removed the
      unlawful action which took the form of a memorandum                  alcohol for food use. In the present case, it had pursued
      sent to the Italian Ministero delle Risorse Agricole                 the objective, in guarantee of which it had provided the
      Alimentari e Forestali in November 1996, forwarded by                abovementioned security, and there was no likelihood that the
      that ministry to Distilleria Palma on 3 February 1997;               market in alcohol for food use would be disrupted if the
                                                                           request to destroy the quantity remaining in storage had been
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                           acceded to.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (1) OJ 1990 C 296, p. 10.
                                                                           (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 of 30 September
                                                                               1993 concerning certain special sales by tender of vinous alcohol
The applicant in the present case contests the Commission’s                    held by intervention agencies, for use as motor fuel within the
                                                                               Community; OJ L 245, 01.10.1993, p. 131.
refusal, conveyed by the memorandum to the AIMA (Azienda
                                                                           (3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 416/96 of 7 March 1996
di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo — State
                                                                               amending Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 concerning certain
Organization for Interventions in the Agricultural Market) of                  special sales by tender of vinous alcohol held by intervention
11 November 1995 and forwarded by the AIMA to Distilleria                      agencies, for use as motor fuel within the Community; OJ L 59,
on 3 February 1997, to allow the destruction of the residual                   8.3.1996, p. 5.
alcohol not used in accordance with the conditions laid down
in tender No 8/90/EC (1).
It states in that connection that immediately after the award of
the tender the first problems began to arise with regard to the
disposal of the processed alcohol in accordance with the
Commission’s requirements (boycotts by the oil transport
companies, a proposal for a directive on tax exemptions for                Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
biofuels), which led to an extraordinary increase in storage               S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
costs, made it more difficult to find sites for the alcohol                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
removed from the intervention agencies, made it impossible
to remove further quantities of alcohol and had a negative
impact on the applicant’s plans for its use.                                                         (Case T-156/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/25)
Moreover, after the adoption of Regulation No 2710/93 (2) the
‘serious and persistent difficulty’, which had heavily affected
the market in recent times, and the ‘special circumstances’,
which had prompted the Commission to cancel the tenders in                                  (Language of the case: to be decided)
respect of the lots of alcohol not taken out of intervention
storage, did not change at all. The applicant, none the less,
took the initiative and removed the second lot of alcohol,                 An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
which had already been paid for since the May 1992. Despite                Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before
 ---pagebreak--- 15.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 259/15
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              Grounds of claim:             —     Contrary to what is stated in
9 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered                                                  the contested decision, the
office is in Barcelona (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela                                                trade marks of which the
Giménez.                                                                                applicant is the proprietor
                                                                                have been put to genuine use
                                                                                in the market, thus fulfilling
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                                 the      requirements       of
                                                                                Article 56(3) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94 (1);
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market                                             —     Contrary to what is stated in
      (OHIM) in Case 258/2000-1 on the ground that the                                                      the contested decision, there
      disputed Community trade mark number 56 739 GIOR-                                                     is likelihood of confusion
      GIO AIRE may not be registered pursuant to                                                            between the Community tra-
      Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;                                                          de mark and the trade marks
                                                                                of which the applicant is the
—     declare invalid that Community trade mark;                                                            proprietor, since the differ-
                                                                                ences between them to not
                                                                                allow the consumer to differ-
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                                                    entiate between them.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.                      Removal from the Register of Case T-207/99 (1)
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (2001/C 259/26)
Registered Community          Word mark ‘GIORGIO AIRE’ —
trade mark:                   Application No 56 739 for goods                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
                              in Class 3
                                                                        By order of 17 May 2001, the President of the Second
Proprietor of the right to    Applicant                                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the trade mark or sign                                                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
asserted in the invalidity                                              Case T-207/99, Asociación Profesional de Fruticultores del
proceedings:                                                            Jalón Medio v Commission of the European Communities.
Trade mark or sign            Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,          (1) OJ C 333 of 14.2.00.
asserted in the invalidity    ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’,
proceedings:                  registered for goods in Class 3
                              and ‘AIR GIORGI’, registered for
                              goods in Class 5                                 Removal from the Register of Case T-67/01 R
Decision of the Cancel-       Application for declaration of                                     (2001/C 259/27)
lation Division:              invalidity of the trade mark
                              upheld                                                      (Language of the case: English)
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the          By order of 10 May 2001, the President of the Chamber of the
Appeal:                       Cancellation Division and dis-            Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                              missal of the application for dec-        ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-67/0 R, JCB
                              laration of invalidity                    Service v Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case T-45/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BYRON — Earlier non-registered trade mark BYRON — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off — Goodwill — Proof of the acquisition and continued existence of the earlier right)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON)
   (Case T-45/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BYRON - Earlier non-registered trade mark BYRON - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Goodwill - Proof of the acquisition and continued existence of the earlier right))
   (2017/C 283/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nelson Alfonso Egüed (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Jackson Family Farms LLC (Santa Rosa, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2015 (Case R 822/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Jackson Family Farms and Mr Alfonso Egüed.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nelson Alfonso Egüed to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 October 1996 in Case C-298/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Halberstadt): Annette Henke v. Gemeinde Schierke and Verwaltungsgemeinschaft 'Brocken' (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings - Transfer of certain administrative functions of a municipality to a body created for that purpose by several municipalities)

text:
  11 . 1 . 97          1 EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 9/ 1
                                                                       I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    administrative functions from a municipality to an
                         of 15 October 1996                                administrative collectivity such as the one in question in
                                                                           the main proceedings.
in Case C-298/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Halberstadt): Annette Henke v.                          0 ) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12. 1994. p. 10.
Gemeinde           Schierke      and      Verwaltungsgemeinschaft          (2 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p. 26 .
                             'Brocken' (M
 (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
 of undertakings — Transfer of certain administrative
functions of a municipality to a body created for that
                 purpose by several municipalities)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              ( 97/C 9/01 )
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    of 17 October 1996
                                                                          in Joined Cases C-283/94, C-291/94 and C-292/94
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (references for preliminary rulings made by the
             published in the European Court Reports)                     Finanzgericht Köln): Denkavit Internationaal BV ( C-283/
                                                                          94 ), Vitic Amsterdam BV ( C-291/94 ) and Voormeer BV
In Case C-298/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                                ( C-292/94 ) v. Bundesamt für Finanzen C1 )
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht                       (Harmonization of tax legislation — Taxation of company
( Labour Court) Halberstadt ( Germany) for a preliminary                           profits — Parent companies and subsidiaries)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between        Annette     Henke       and   Gemeinde      Schierke,                                     .97/C 9/02 )
Verwaltungsgemeinschaft             ' Brocken'    —       on     the
interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/                            (Language of the case: German)
EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,                        published in the European Court Reports)
businesses or parts of businesses (2 ) — the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.                   In Joined Cases C-283/94, C-291 /94 and C-292/94:
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray                       references to the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC
( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O.                    Treaty by the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court,
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H.                Cologne, Germany ) for preliminary rulings in the
Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; H. A.                   proceedings pending before that court between Denkavit
Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given               Internationaal BV ( C-283/94 ), Vitic Amsterdam BV (C
a judgment on 15 October 1996, in which it has ruled:                     291 /94 ) and Voormeer BV ( C-292/94 ) and the Bundesamt
                                                                          für Finanzen — on the interpretation of Articles 3 and 5
Article 1 (1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of                         of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                  common system of taxation applicable in the case of
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees '                 parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses              States (2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
or parts of businesses must be interpreted as meaning that                Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón,
the concept of a 'transfer of an undertaking, business or                 D. A. O. Edward, P. Jan ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet,
part of a business ' does not apply to the transfer of                    Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,


title: Case C-599/15 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2015 by Romania against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2015 in Case T-784/14, Romania v Commission

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/33

         Appeal brought on 16 November 2015 by Romania against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September 2015 in Case T-784/14, Romania v Commission

   (Case C-599/15 P)
   (2016/C 038/46)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Appellant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, A. Buzoianu, E. Gane and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               I. declare the appeal admissible, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-784/14 in its entirety and rule afresh in respect of Case T-784/14 by declaring the application for annulment to be admissible and by annulling letter BUDG/B3/MV D (2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014;
               or
               declare the appeal admissible, set aside the order of the General Court in Case T-784/14 in its entirety and refer Case T-784/14 back to the General Court in order that the latter may declare the application for annulment admissible and annul letter BUDG/B3/MV D (2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014;

               —

               II. order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

                  First ground — Procedural irregularities before the General Court harming the interests of the Romanian State

               Romania takes the view that the order under appeal was made in breach of Article 130(7) and (8) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
               The General Court, it submits, failed to determine, and did not provide proper reasons, whether it was necessary to examine the objection of inadmissibility together with the examination of the substance.
               Although the General Court decided that joint examination of the objection of inadmissibility and the substance was not justified, it found that the legal context under which the obligation for Romania to pay arose came under the rules set out in Decision 2007/436 (1) and Regulation No 1150/2000, (2) and ruled that the Romanian State had an obligation arising under those provisions to determine and pay the amount of EUR 14 883,79 as traditional own resources.
               By analysing the nature and basis of the payment obligation, the General Court ruled on the substance of the case and, in doing so, acted at variance with its decision to rule exclusively on the objection of inadmissibility.

               2.

                  Second ground — Breach of EU law by the General Court

               Romania takes the view that the General Court erred in classifying the nature of the obligations attributed to it by letter BUDG/B3/MV D(2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014, thereby committing an error of law which affected the General Court’s analysis of (i) the assessment of the Commission’s power and (ii) the nature of the disputed letter.
               In the alternative, Romania takes the view that the General Court infringed EU law and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in concluding that it is for the Member States to determine whether there is a loss of traditional own resources, as well as the existence of an obligation to pay such resources.
               In addition, Romania disputes the applicability of the mechanism of interim payment in the present case and, in that respect, the related findings of the General Court.

      (1)  Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 17).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case C-165/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky lodged on 4 April 2011 — Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v Profitube spol. s.r.o.

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky lodged on 4 April 2011 — Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v Profitube spol. s.r.o.
   (Case C-165/11)
   2011/C 194/12
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky (Tax Directorate of the Slovak Republic)

      Defendant: Profitube spol. s.r.o.

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a situation where, in 2005 and 2006, goods from a non-Member State of the European Union (Ukraine) were placed in a public customs warehouse in the territory of a Member State of the European Union by an importer from that Member State, were subsequently processed in an inward processing suspension procedure in that customs warehouse, and the resulting product was not immediately exported within the meaning of Article 114 of Regulation No 2913/92 but instead was sold in that same warehouse by the processor of the goods to another company from that Member State, which did not to release it from the customs warehouse for free circulation, but subsequently returned it to the customs warehousing procedure, is the said sale of goods within the same customs warehouse still subject solely to Community customs rules, or has the legal situation been changed by the said sale to the extent that the transaction is now subject to the system under the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC), (1) i.e. is it possible, for the purpose of the system of value added tax under the Sixth Directive, to regard a public customs warehouse located in the territory of a Member State as part of the territory of the Community, or the territory of that Member State, in accordance with the definitions provided in Article 3 of the Sixth Directive?

               2.

               In light of the doctrine of abuse of rights developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union and concerning the application of the Sixth Directive (C-255/02 Halifax), is it possible to treat the above as a situation where the applicant, by selling goods in a public customs warehouse located in the territory of the Slovak Republic, has already made supply for consideration in the Slovak Republic?

               3.

               If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, in that the transaction in question is now subject to the system under the Sixth Directive, is that transaction then a chargeable event

                           (a)

                           under Article 10(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive, with the tax becoming chargeable as a result of the delivery of the goods in the customs warehouse located in the territory of the Slovak Republic; or

                           (b)

                           on the ground that, after the goods were imported from a third country (Article 10(3) of the Sixth Directive), the customs procedure ended while the goods were held in storage in that customs warehouse upon sale thereof to another person from the Member State?

               4.

               Are the objectives of the Sixth Directive as expressed in the preamble thereof, or the objectives of the GATT (WTO), fulfilled if the sale of goods imported from a third country to a customs warehouse and then processed therein and sold to another person from that Member State in the customs warehouse in the territory of the Member State of the European Community is not subject to value added tax in that Member State?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment

      OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-607/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 November 2013 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 November 2013 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others v Francesco Cimmino and Others
   (Case C-607/13)
   2014/C 61/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others

      Respondents: Francesco Cimmino and Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2362/98, (1) under which it is the responsibility of the Member States to check that operators are commercially active for their own account as importers into the Community and as independent economic units in terms of management, staffing and operations, is all import activity carried out on behalf of a traditional operator by persons who only formally satisfy the requirements laid down by that regulation in respect of ‘new operators’ to be excluded from the customs benefits normally granted to new operators?

               2.

               Does Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 permit a traditional operator to sell bananas which are outside the European Union to a newcomer with which it has reached an agreement under which the bananas are to be imported into the European Union at a preferential rate of duty and are to be resold to that traditional operator at a price agreed upon prior to the whole transaction, without the newcomer bearing any actual business risk or making any arrangements regarding the resources necessary for carrying out that transaction?

               3.

               Does the agreement referred to in Question 2 constitute an infringement of the prohibition, laid down in Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2362/98, on the transfer of rights from new operators to traditional operators, with the result that the transfer carried out remains ineffective and the duty is payable in full and not at a preferential rate, in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation No 2988/95? (2)

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case C-288/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014  — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data — Article 28(1) — National supervisory authorities — Independence — National legislation prematurely bringing to an end the term served by the supervisory authority — Creation of a new supervisory authority and appointment of another person as head of that authority)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-288/12) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/46/EC - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data - Article 28(1) - National supervisory authorities - Independence - National legislation prematurely bringing to an end the term served by the supervisory authority - Creation of a new supervisory authority and appointment of another person as head of that authority))
   2014/C 175/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Talabér-Ritz and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: I. Chatelier, A. Buchta, Z. Belényessy and H. Kranenborg, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Directive 95/46/EC 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 (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Obligation of Member States to provide that the application of measures adopted pursuant to Directive 95/46 is monitored by one or more public authorities exercising their functions with complete independence — Adoption of national legislation ending the six-year term of the data protection supervisor before its expiry — Creation of a national authority for data protection and freedom of information — Appointment, for a nine-year term, of a person other than the data protection supervisor as head of that authority

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by prematurely bringing to an end the term served by the supervisory authority for the protection of personal data, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC 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;

               2)

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

               3)

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

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28. 7. 2012.


title: Case T-191/15: Action brought on 10 April 2015 — SLE Schuh v OHIM — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon Sanayi ve Ticaret (VIOS)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/35

         Action brought on 10 April 2015 — SLE Schuh v OHIM — Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon Sanayi ve Ticaret (VIOS)
   (Case T-191/15)
   (2015/C 205/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SLE Schuh GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Stolitzka, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vigoss Tekstil Konfeksiyon Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIOS’ — Application No 11 283 546

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2015 in Case R 623/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the action and alter the contested decision to the effect that registration of the mark ‘VIOS’ is allowed to proceed in respect of all the Classes and thus also in respect of:

                           —

                           Class 18: Goods made of these materials (of leather and imitations of leather) and not included in other classes; Trunks and travelling bags; Parasols;

                           —

                           Class 25: Clothing, headgear;

                     In the alternative:

               —

               uphold the action and annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-487/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Kureha Corp v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN — Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark — Time-limits — Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Kureha Corp v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)
   (Case T-487/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN - Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark - Time-limits - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 209/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kureha Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and O. Sude, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1631/2007-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and Kureha Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kureha Corp. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


20.2.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/19
The Commission claims that the Court should:                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                      Köln by order of that court of 3 September 1997 in the
                                                                              case of Jutta Johann against Hartmut Johann
                                                                                (Case C-430/97)
Ð declare that, by refusing to refund VAT to taxable
     persons not established in France, in cases where those                                   (98/C 55/36)
     persons had sub-contracted part of their work to a
     taxable person established in France, the French
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     eighth VAT Directive 79/1072/EEC (1), especially                 European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Köln
     Article 2 thereof,                                               (Local Court, Cologne) of 3 September 1997, received at
                                                                      the Court Registry on 19 December 1997, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Jutta Johann v. Hartmut
                                                                      Johann on the following questions:
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      1. Do the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
                                                                          Communities, and in particular Annex VIII thereto
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       (pension scheme) constitute a comprehensive and
                                                                          definitive determination of pension claims by a
                                                                          divorced wife, which excludes further claims under
                                                                          national law (in this case apportionment of pension
The Commission rejects the interpretation of Article 9(2)(c)              rights under the German law of obligations)?
of the sixth Directive (2) by the French authorities, who
reduce' the concept of the supply of services in
eliminating waste to the mere execution of works on                   2. Is it compatible with the Staff Regulations of officials
corporeal movable goods which are to be taxed at the                      of the European Communities and Article 6 of the EC
place where they are physically carried out. Such an                      Treaty for the divorce law of a Member State (in this
interpretation of the supply of services in eliminating                   case Germany), by burdening an official with a claim
waste, where such services are cross-frontier by nature,                  under the law of obligations for pension
results in a unilateral and arbitrary allocation of the right             apportionment, to place a heavier burden on that
to tax to the Member State in which the supplier of                       official solely on the ground that he is of German
services holding the main contract is established.                        nationality?
Moreover, the French authorities' approach generates
considerable legal uncertainty not only for the operator in
question in determining for his clients' purposes the VAT
regime of his supply under the contract, but also for the
tax authorities of the Member State in which that taxable
person is established. Such a conception has the effect of
creating potential situations of double taxation which the            Action brought on 19 December 1997 by the Commission
rules of Article 9, and Article 9(1) in particular, allow to                  of the European Communities against Ireland
be avoided by ensuring uniform, homogeneous and                                              (Case C-431/97)
rational taxation of the supplies of services in question
within the Community. Finally, for the purposes of                                             (98/C 55/37)
determining the place of taxation, the French authorities
effectively re-read or interpret the contract made between
the holder of the main contract and his client, without the           An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
authorities of the Member State in which that supplier of             Justice of the European Communities on 19 December
services is taxable having been in a position to determine            1997 by the Commission of the European Communities,
whether or not that interpretation was capable of                     represented by Mr Berend Jan Drijber, a member of the
adversely affecting their own fiscal competence as defined            Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
within the scope of Article 9 of the sixth Directive, and             in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la
Article 9(1) in particular.                                           Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Eighth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð arrangements
    for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not
                                                                      Ð declare that, in failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    established in the territory of the country (OJ L 331,
    27.12.1979, p. 11).
                                                                          or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(2) Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of           Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð common                 common rules and standards for ship inspection and
    system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ            survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
    L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).                                              maritime administrations (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil
                                                                          its obligations under this Directive and the Treaty,
                                                                      Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-460/04: Action brought on 22 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/8

         Action brought on 22 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-460/04)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   (2004/C 314/16)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and R. Troosters, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/51/EC (1) of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, or at least by failing to forward those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period within which Directive 2001/51/EC had to be transposed expired on 11 February 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 187 of 10.7.2001, pp. 45-46.


title: Case T-600/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Schuhhaus Dielmann v OHIM — Carrera (Carrera panamericana)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/30

         Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Schuhhaus Dielmann v OHIM — Carrera (Carrera panamericana)
   (Case T-600/11)
   2012/C 32/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrera SpA (Caldiero, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 1989/2010-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘Carrera panamericana’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Carrera SpA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: figurative mark containing the word element ‘CARRERA’ for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.


title: Case F-6/13: Action brought on 17 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/39

         Action brought on 17 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-6/13)
   2013/C 108/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to apply the correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 to the remuneration of the applicant for the month of April 2012 and following months.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal Article 1 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations and the methodological manual referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 1445/2007 of 11 December 2007;

               —

               declare illegal Article 3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 fixing the correction coefficient for the calculation of the remuneration of staff assigned to Varese at 92.3

               —

               annul the decisions establishing the applicant’s salary statements on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010;

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of 5 October 2012 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the correction coefficient applied in Varese;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2005 in Case T-390/03 CM Capital Markets Holding SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier figurative mark including the expression ‘capital markets CM’ — Application for Community figurative mark including the element ‘CM’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 May 2005
   in Case T-390/03 CM Capital Markets Holding SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier figurative mark including the expression ‘capital markets CM’ - Application for Community figurative mark including the element ‘CM’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 171/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-390/03: CM Capital Markets Holding SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented initially by N. Moya Fernández and J. Calderón Chavero, and subsequently by J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and I. de Medrano Caballero), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Caja de Ahorros de Murcia, established in Murcia (Spain) — Action against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2003 (Case R 244/2003-1), relating to opposition proceedings between CM Capital Markets Holding SA and Caja de Ahorros de Murcia — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-52/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  — Harry's Morato v OHIM

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/19

         Action brought on 21 February 2006 — Harry's Morato v OHIM
   (Case T-52/06)
   (2006/C 96/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Harry's Morato SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy) (represented by: Niccoló Ferretti, Giovanni Casucci, Fabio Trevisan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero OhG mbH
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend decision R 600/2005-1 of the First Board of Appeal of 16 December 2005;

               —

               call on the OHIM to immediately register the trade mark ‘Morato’ further to the application for registration No 1 849 439 and subsequent restriction, in the absence of any real subjective impediment and in any case in view of the fact that it does not conflict with the trade mark ‘MORATO’, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Morato’ (application for registration No 1 849 439), for goods in Class 30.
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FERRERO OHG mbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘MORETTO’ (No 39 707 273), for goods in Class 30.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed and refusal of the application for registration.
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Lapse of the trade mark ‘MORETTO’ on grounds of lack of use, and the incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (risk of confusion).


title: Case T-84/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — MIP Metro (COMIT)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/23

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — MIP Metro (COMIT)
   (Case T-84/08)
   (2008/C 116/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Totally alter the decision of the OHIM Fourth Board of Appeal, Case R 138/2006-4, rendered on 19 December 2007 and notified on 27 December 2007;

               —

               confirm the OHIM Opposition Division's decision dated 12 January 2006, ruling on opposition No B 675 803, as far as it allows application No 3 104 155 COMIT to proceed to registration for classes 35, 36, 41 and 42;

               —

               alter the OHIM Opposition Division's decision dated 12 January 2006, ruling on opposition No B 675 803, as far as it accepts opposition No B 675 803, in part, for the goods in class 16;

               —

               as a consequence, reject opposition No B 675 803 in its entirety and allow application No 3 104 155 COMIT to proceed to registration for all the goods and services of classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42;

               —

               order the defendants to bear the costs of the present proceeding, as well as those of the OHIM opposition and appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘COMIT’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42 — application No 3 104 155

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘Comet’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the trade mark application in its entirety

      Pleas in law: According to the applicant, there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.


title: Case F-39/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/27

         Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-39/15)
   (2015/C 178/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights in the EU’s pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited which were acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-534/13: Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/24

         Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS)
   (Case T-534/13)
   2014/C 9/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Panrico, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HDN Development Corp. (Frankfort, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               set aside the decision of 25 July 2013 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Case R 623/2011-4, notified to the applicant on 29 July 2013; and

               —

               declare invalid Community trade mark No 1 298 785‘KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark ‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’ for products and services in Classes 25, 30 and 42 — Registered Community trade mark No 1 298 785

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: HDN Development Corp.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of that regulation

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of that regulation


title: Case C-256/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Provisional, including protective, measures — Recognition and enforcement)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez
   (Case C-256/09) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Provisional, including protective, measures - Recognition and enforcement)
   2010/C 246/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bianca Purrucker

      Defendant: Guillermo Vallés Pérez

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Chapter 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Application of the recognition and enforcement rules in that regulation to a provisional measure awarding custody of a child to its father and ordering the return of the child, retained by its mother in another Member State, to its father

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions laid down in Article 21 et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, do not apply to provisional measures, relating to rights of custody, falling within the scope of Article 20 of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-113/08: Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Spain v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/40

         Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-113/08)
   (2008/C 107/68)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), to the extent it relates to the subject matter of this action, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The effect of the contested decision is to exclude from Community financing certain corrective measures, among which, for the purposes of this action, are included those concerning aid to olive oil production in the seasons 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 1999/2001, to a total sum of EUR 183 965 185,54; and direct aid payments, aid for arable crop areas, applied for in the years 2003 and 2004, to a total sum of EUR 16 591 528,35.
   In particular, this action relates to the corrective financial measures adopted in relation to aid to olive oil production, excluding the proportion relating to the season 1999/2000 in Andalusia, and that adopted in relation to aid to arable crops areas applied for in the years 2003 and 2004.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               As regards aid to olive oil production:

                           —

                           Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 (1), in that the financial corrective measures were not based on observations made by the Commission on verifications made as a result of the investigation, but on extrapolations from observations relating to other investigations.

                           —

                           Infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 (2) and of Article 2 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3), since the contested decision applies them in inappropriate circumstances, given that the theoretical irregularities relied on by the Commission to justify the financial corrective measures decided upon are insufficient.

                           —

                           Failure to observe the period of 24 months prior to written communication of the results of the verifications, laid down in Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99.

               —

               As regards the aid to arable crops areas:

                           —

                           Infringement of the procedure laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95, since there was no statement of the reasons justifying the financial corrective measures in the document in which the results of the verifications were notified to the Member State, and alternatively, failure to observe the period of 24 months laid down in Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999.

                           —

                           Infringement of Article 2 of Regulation No 1258/1999, since the contested decision is applied in inappropriate circumstances, given that the irregularities assessed by the Commission are insufficient.

                           —

                           Infringement of the provisions of Article 2 of that regulation, and of the Guidelines for the calculation of the financial consequences on preparing the Decision on the clearance of accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103).


title: Case C-73/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2014 — SC Vicdantrans SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-73/15)
   (2015/C 155/14)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Vicdantrans SRL

      Respondent: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Bihor, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Question referred

   Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing a tax, called an ‘environmental stamp duty’, such as that provided for in Emergency Government Order No 9/2013, payable upon the registration of second-hand motor vehicles coming from another Member State or upon the transfer of ownership of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market, but not payable in respect of second-hand motor vehicles purchased on the domestic market for which a similar tax — levied contrary to EU law — had been previously paid which has not been repaid?


title: Case T-235/99: Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Garage Bernsteyn B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.2.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/29
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the               Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Direcks Service
proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the                Station Bocholtz B.V. against the Commission of the
Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1), to the extent to                                  European Communities
which that regulation affects the applicants — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                                        (Case T-236/99)
composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy,
J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
                                                                                (2000/C 47/50)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December
1999, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                         European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Direcks
                                                                        Service Station Bocholtz B.V., of Bocholtz (Netherlands),
                                                                        represented by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
(1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.98.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                             Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                             Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
Action brought on 14 October 1999 by Garage Bernsteyn                        demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                         decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
                                ties                                         to be fair and reasonable;
                         (Case T-235/99)                                — make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
                                                                             the law.
                          (2000/C 47/49)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               T-210/99.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 October 1999 by Garage                       (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
Bernsteyn B.V., of Berg en Terblijt (Netherlands), represented
by T.J.M. Oostdijk, of the Maastricht Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                                                                        Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                        Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia —
    Germany, and order that, as regards the applicant, no
                                                                        Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against Commission of the
    demand for repayment should be made, or at any rate
                                                                                European Communities
    decide the matter in such way as the Court shall consider
    to be fair and reasonable;
                                                                                (Case T-269/99)
— make the appropriate order as to costs, in accordance with
    the law.                                                                                (2000/C 47/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
T-210/99.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                        1999 by Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa and Gipuzkoako
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, Gipuzkoa
                                                                        (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña
                                                                        Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively,
                                                                        Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.