title: Case T-281/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Fels-Werke v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/32

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Fels-Werke v Commission
   (Case T-281/14)
   2014/C 223/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fels-Werke GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F. Wesche, L. Petersen and T. Woltering, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU due to erroneous classification of the special compensation regime

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the opening decision infringes Articles 107(1) and 108 TFEU and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) did not constitute an allocation of State resources and the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users did not constitute a waiver of State resources.

                           —

                           The applicant states, in this context, that the Commission based its examination on new delimiting parameters which are incompatible with the principles of previous case-law. In particular, the Commission completely waived the criterion of the specific power of disposal of State authorities, which according to settled case-law is necessary for the classification as State resources, and deemed it to be sufficient for the State legislature to affect cash flows between private parties and for the compliance by the private parties with the legal requirements to be monitored by regulatory authorities.

                           —

                           In addition, the Commission is bound by its decision by which it did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources, and therefore erred in law by classifying the 2012 EEG as a new, unlawfully implemented aid scheme.

                           —

                           In addition, the Commission did not adequately examine and therefore also did not realise that the exceptions for energy-intensive users are justified according to the aim, nature and scheme of the 2012 EEG and therefore did not constitute a selective advantage.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 659/1999 due to failure to propose appropriate measures

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that, when examining the 2012 EEG, the Commission should in any event have applied the procedure for existing aid in accordance with Article 108(1) TFEU and Articles 17-19 of Regulation No 659/1999 and should have proposed appropriate measures to Germany before opening the formal investigation procedure instead of exposing market participants to considerable economic risks due to the classification of the 2012 EEG as new, non-notified aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard

                           —

                           The applicant argues also that the Commission should have consulted it in any event before adopting a decision with such serious legal effects.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Insufficient reasoning

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant claims that the opening decision is vitiated by a lack of reasoning in the essential passages.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-122/03 (1)

   (2005/C 115/71)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 9 February 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-122/03, AGA AB v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case C-258/13: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the 5 a Vara Cível de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social IP (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  — Right to an effective remedy  — Legal persons pursuing a commercial objective  — Legal aid — No link with European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/12

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the 5a Vara Cível de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio Lda v Instituto da Segurança Social IP
   (Case C-258/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling  - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  - Right to an effective remedy  - Legal persons pursuing a commercial objective  - Legal aid - No link with European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 102/15
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   5a Vara Cível de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sociedade Agrícola e Imobiliária da Quinta de S. Paio Lda

      Defendant: Instituto da Segurança Social IP

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Varas Cíveis de Lisboa — Interpretation of Articles 6 and 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) — Right to an effective remedy — National legislation excluding legal persons pursuing a commercial objective from obtaining legal aid — Exemption from the legal charges applicable to those legal persons where they are insolvent or have entered into a composition with creditors.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the 5a Vara Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) in its decision of 13 March 2013 (Case C-258/13).

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case C-567/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 3 December 2010 — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL v Government of the Brussels-Capital Region

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 3 December 2010 — Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, Pétitions-Patrimoine ASBL, Atelier de Recherche et d’Action Urbaines ASBL v Government of the Brussels-Capital Region
   (Case C-567/10)
   2011/C 63/39
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

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

      Defendant: Government of the Brussels-Capital Region

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from the scope of that directive a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a plan such as that applicable to a ‘plan particulier d’affectation du sol’ (specific land-use plan), provided for in Articles 58 to 63 of the Code bruxellois de l’Aménagement du Territoire (Brussels Town and Country Planning Code)?

               2.

               Must the word ‘required’ in Article 2(a) of that directive be understood as excluding from the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ plans which are provided for by legislative provisions but the adoption of which is not compulsory, such as the specific land-use plans referred to in Article 40 of the Brussels Town and Country Planning Code?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30


title: Case F-89/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Bovagnet v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Education costs — Definition)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — Bovagnet v Commission
   (Case F-89/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Education costs - Definition)
   2012/C 138/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: François-Carlos Bovagnet (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Korving, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to reimburse fully the education costs in respect of the applicant’s children.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 17 December 2009 in so far as it refuses to reimburse Mr Bovagnet that part of the education costs paid by him and linked to contribution to the investment funds and working capital of the school that his two children attend;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Bovagnet the difference between the amount of education allowance granted and that which would result from the calculation of the allowance including the costs incurred for the contribution to the investment funds and the working capital of the school that his two children attend, subject to the ceiling laid down under Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010, p. 61.


title: Case T-273/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lithomex/OHMI — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/33

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lithomex/OHMI — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)
   (Case T-273/14)
   2014/C 253/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Denmark) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co.KG (Wendlingen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Overturn decision R 2280/2012-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17/02/2014;

               —

               Amend the contested decision to show that the appeal against Decision No 5589 C of the Cancellation Division of 21/11/2012 is rejected;

               —

               Condemn the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark LITHOFIX for goods in Classes 19 and 31 — Community trade mark registration No 7 5 04  368

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — International and national word marks ‘LITHOFIN’ for goods in Class 1

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and the Community trade mark declared invalid for all the goods in Class 19

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


title: Case C-456/01 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 84/40                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
such legislation has been found to be non-compliant. It is            Pleas in law and main arguments
untenable to think that service order No 57/2000 of 4 August
2000 issued by the authority governing harbourmasters is
capable of amending Decree No 347/94 containing the                   Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94
contested provisions.                                                 on the Community trade mark (2). Contrary to the view of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance, the mark applied for lacks distinctive
                                                                      character. At the time of the application, neither the tablet
                                                                      shape nor the colour combination, and especially the combi-
In the Commission’s view, the Italian authorities are well aware
                                                                      nation of the two, were typical for a washing powder and they
of the above considerations, as is clear from the undertaking
                                                                      were certainly not technically necessary.
given several times — but so far not fulfilled — to make the
necessary amendments to Presidential Decree No 347/94 in
order to bring Italian legislation into line with Community
law.                                                                  Contrary to the view taken by the Court of First Instance, there
                                                                      is no reason why consumers should in principle be regarded
                                                                      as less attentive when purchasing goods for everyday use;
                                                                      rather, the opposite is true.
                                                                      In the alternative: even if the time of registration were decisive,
                                                                      the possibility cannot be ruled out that the contested trade
                                                                      mark application could serve to designate the origin of the
                                                                      goods, since it is prohibited, when considering the list of
                                                                      goods, to rule out distinctiveness on the grounds that there
Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA                     may be similarities between the goods. That approach conflates
against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by                to an unacceptable degree the issue of registrability with that
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  of scope of protection, or likelihood of confusion. Even where
the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between                    a mark is confusingly similar, it is for the proprietor of the
Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the                   mark having priority to obtain refusal of the earlier mark
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                    under Article 8 of Regulation 40/94.
                        (Case C-456/01 P)
                                                                      (1) Not yet published in the court reports.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 11, p. 1.
                          (2002/C 84/69)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between Henkel
                                                                      Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA
KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                      against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by
(Trade Marks and Designs) (1), was brought before the Court of
                                                                      the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      the European Communities in Case T-336/99, between
2001 by Henkel KGaA, represented by Rechtsanwälte Holger
                                                                      Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the
Friedrich Wissel and Dr. Christian Osterrieth, Düsseldorf, with
                                                                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-457/01 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 84/70)
—     partially annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
      of the European Communities of 19 September 2001 in
      Case T-335/999, served on 1 October 2001;
                                                                      An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
      annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the          2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of              the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between Henkel
      21 September 1999 in Case R 71/1999-3 relating to               KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
      Community trade mark application number 703 231;                (Trade Marks and Designs) (1), was brought before the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      2001 by Henkel KGaA, represented by Rechtsanwälte Holger
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market       Friedrich Wissel and Dr. Christian Osterrieth, Düsseldorf, with
      to pay the costs of the proceedings.                            an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-23/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia, Luigi Soini, Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e figlio v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia, Luigi Soini, Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e figlio v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
   (Case C-23/07)
   (2007/C 82/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confcooperativa Friuli Venezia Giulia, Luigi Soini, Azienda Agricola Vivai Pinat Mario e Figlio

      Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (OJEC L 236 of 23 September 2003) to be interpreted as meaning, with regard to the names of wines produced in Hungary and in the European Community, that, with effect from 1 May 2004, only the provisions of Community legislation referred to in Regulation No 1493/99 (1) and Regulation No 753/2002 (2), as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004 (3), are applicable?

               2.

               Does Article 52 of Regulation No 1493/99 constitute an adequate legal basis on which the European Commission may abolish the use of the name of a wine (in the present case, ‘Tocai friulano’) which derives from a vine variety that is lawfully entered in the appropriate registers of the Italian State and is referred to in relevant Community regulations?

               3.

               Does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, prohibit discrimination against producers and users of just one wine name, namely that relating to the wine ‘Tocai friulano’, among the 122 names listed in Annex I to Regulation No 753/2002 (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2002), in so far as it prohibits the continued use of that name after 31 March 2007?

               4.

               Is Article 19(2) of Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which provides authority for the use of the names of the vine varieties listed in Annex I to that regulation (as amended by Regulation No 1429/2004), to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible and lawfully permissible for there to be cases of homonymy among the names of vine varieties and geographical indications which refer to wines produced within the European Community?

               5.

               If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative, does the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination among producers and consumers of agricultural products within the European Community, preclude the Commission from applying in one of its own regulations (753/2002) the criterion of homonymy in a manner deriving from the application of Annex I to that regulation, to the effect, that is to say, of recognising the legality of the use of many names of vine varieties which include names that are wholly or partly homonymous with an equal number of geographical indications, whilst refusing to accept as lawful the use of just one name of vine variety (‘Tocai friulano’), which has been lawfully used for centuries in the European market?

               6.

               Is Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to be interpreted as meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, and in particular the provision in Article 24(6) thereof, concerning homonymous names of wines, it is not possible for the Council of Ministers or the Member States (still less the European Commission) to adopt or approve measures such as Commission Regulation No 753/2002, which, with regard to homonymous names, afford different treatment to wine names having the same characteristics from the point of view of homonymity?

               7.

               Is the effect of the express reference to Articles 23 and 24 of the TRIPS Agreement in recital 56 in the preamble to and Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/99 to make the provision in Article 24(6), which establishes the right of the States that are parties to that agreement to protect homonymous names, directly applicable within the Community legal order, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11.


title: Case C-145/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Trento lodged on  17 March 2006  — Fendt Italiana Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio Dogane di Trento

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Trento lodged on 17 March 2006 — Fendt Italiana Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio Dogane di Trento
   (Case C-145/06)
   (2006/C 143/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Trento
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fendt Italiana Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio Dogane di Trento
   Question referred
   Are the taxation arrangements in Article 62 of Legislative Decree No 504/95 compatible with Directive 2003/96/EC (1) which restructured the Community framework for the taxation of energy products where those products are used for purposes other than as motor fuel or heating fuel?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.


title: Case C-368/07: Action brought on 2 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/8

         Action brought on 2 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-368/07)
   (2007/C 223/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to draw up and adopt, in respect of each Italian port, waste reception and handling plans, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1);

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 28 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81.


title: Case T-135/15: Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Italy v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/36

         Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-135/15)
   (2015/C 155/43)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: C. Colelli, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in so far as it is contested in the present action, European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 (notified under document C(2015) 53 final) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests, in particular:

               (a)

               the part of the decision in which, following audit EX/2010/010, concerning the sugar sector, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 9 0 4 98  735,16 was made, in respect of financial years 2007, 2008 and 2009 on the basis of a ‘correct interpretation of sugar production’;

               (b)

               the part of the decision, in which, following audit CEB/2011/090, concerning promotional measures, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 6 07  275,90 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’ relating to financial year 2010;

               (c)

               the part of the decision in which, following audit LA/2009/006, concerning the measure ‘information and promotion campaigns for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries’, a financial correction in the amount of EUR 1 1 98  831,03 was made, among other measures, for ‘late payments’.

         In support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging breach of Article 31(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), and also infringement of the Member State’s rights of defence.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging breach of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (JO 2006 L 171, p. 60), breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (JO 2006 L 176, p. 32), and that the Commission acted at odds with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 November in C-187/12, C-188/12 and C-189/12, SFIR and Others (EU:C:2013:737).

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, of the non bis in idem rule and of the duty of sincere cooperation.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging breach of the second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Regulation No 1290/2005, breach of the second subparagraph of Article 11(3) and of Chapter 3 of Regulation No 885/2006, and breach of the Commission’s Guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging breach of Article 9(3) of Regulation No 883/2006, and also the existence, in the present case, of a difference in treatment and distortion of the facts.

               6.

               Sixth plea, alleging breach of Article 20 of Regulation No 501/2008, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of imputability of financial corrections to the Member States.


title: Case C-657/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Bluebell Partners Limited v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Bluebell Partners Limited v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-657/16)
   (2017/C 121/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bluebell Partners Limited

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Question referred

   Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found to have taken place between, on the one hand, the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and, on the other hand, one or more sellers, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.


title: Case T-123/13: Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/20

         Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)
   (Case T-123/13)
   2013/C 123/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal on 28 November 2012;

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘dodie’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 037 821

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish and Portuguese trade marks of the word mark ‘DODOT’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the trade mark applied for in relation to certain goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Case C-60/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Eisenstadt): X (Counterfeit and pirated goods — No criminal penalty for the transit of counterfeit goods — Compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 3295/94)

text:
21.2.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 47/7
Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by failing to                 by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                    provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/84/EC of
necessary to comply with Article 4(c) of Commission Directive                the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets                     1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting
for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10) as                    of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), or, at the very
amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                         least, by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of
1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), the Kingdom of Spain has failed                  those measures, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
to fulfil its obligations under those directives and the EC                  obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Treaty, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting              composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward                        Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
(Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                   Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January              has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it:
2004, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4(c)              98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on                        20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based
      competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as               on, or consisting of, conditional access, the Kingdom of Spain
      amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
      1996, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                                  2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                               of 7 January 2004
                         of 7 January 2004                                   in Case C-60/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Landesgericht Eisenstadt): X (1)
in Case C-58/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               (Counterfeit and pirated goods — No criminal penalty for
                                                                             the transit of counterfeit goods — Compatibility with
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 3295/94)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
98/84/EC — Information society — Radio broadcasting —
Services based on conditional access — Services consisting                                                (2004/C 47/12)
of conditional access — Protected services — Legal protection
            — Devices giving unauthorised access)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                            (2004/C 47/11)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-60/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                   in the European Court Reports)                            by the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                             ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against X,
                                                                             on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94
                                                                             of 22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the
In Case C-58/02, Commission of the European Communities                      entry into the Community and the export and re-export
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Shotter v Kingdom of Spain                 from the Community of goods infringing certain intellectual
(Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that,              property rights (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8), as amended by Council
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 (OJ                           interpretation of Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/
1999 L 27, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                    104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the                  the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-                   p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                   for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:                   and D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advo-
                                                                             cate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the
1.    Articles 2 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of             Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
      22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the entry             it has ruled:
      into the Community and the export and re-export from the
      Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property            Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-
      rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999              ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
      of 25 January 1999, are applicable to situations in which              trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there exists a
      goods in transit between two countries not belonging to the            likelihood of aural confusion between a word mark registered in one
      European Community are temporarily detained in a Member                Member State and an indication, in the course of trade, of the
      State by the customs authorities of that State.                        geographical origin of a product originating in another Member
                                                                             State, the proprietor of the trade mark may, pursuant to Article 5 of
2.    The duty to interpret national law so as to be compatible with         Directive 89/104, prevent the use of the indication of geographical
      Community law, in the light of its wording and purpose, in             origin only if that use is not in accordance with honest practices in
      order to attain the aim pursued by the latter, cannot, of itself       industrial or commercial matters. It is for the national court to carry
      and independently of a law adopted by a Member State, have             out an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the particular
      the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal     case in that regard.
      law of an entity which has failed to meet the requirements of
      Regulation No 3295/94.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 7 January 2004
                                                                                of 7 January 2004
in Case C-100/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH &
                                                                             in Case C-201/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       Co. v Putsch GmbH (1)
                                                                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                             Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Limitation of the effects of a trade                 the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of State for
mark in relation to indications concerning geographical                            Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1)
origin — Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark
as an element of use in accordance with ‘honest practices in
                 industrial or commercial matters’)                          (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of
                                                                             certain projects on the environment — National measure
                                                                             granting consent for mining operations without an environ-
                             (2004/C 47/13)
                                                                             mental impact assessment being carried out — Direct effect
                                                                                of directives Triangular situation)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/14)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-100/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-201/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. and Putsch GmbH, on the                      EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s


title: Case C-279/02 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de Campos against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-194/00 between Nuno Antas de Campos and European Parliament

text:
C 274/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.11.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Appeal brought on 30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                            Campos against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002
                                                                            by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                           (First Chamber)                                  the European Communities in Case T-194/00 (1) between
                                                                                Nuno Antas de Campos and European Parliament
                            of 8 July 2002
                                                                                (Case C-279/02 P)
in Case 203/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): Fazen-
               da Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/27)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Post-clearance
recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the
import duties to be collected — Calculation of the time-limit
                  for taking action for recovery)
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002 by
                           (2002/C 274/26)                                  the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-194/00 between Nuno
                                                                            Antas de Campos and European Parliament was brought
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                            30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de Campos, represented by
                                                                            C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
In Case C-203/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme                        —    quash the contested judgment for errors in law, as a result
Administrative Tribunal) for a preliminary ruling in the                         of the misapplication, in the present case, of the principle
proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda                            of sound administration, the duty to provide reasons, the
Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd., intervener: Ministério Público —                    principle of equality and non-discrimination and the rules
on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council                          guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing;
Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-
clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which
have not been required of the person liable for payment on
                                                                            —    also on the grounds of breach of the principle of sound
goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1) — the Court (First                      administration and of the duty to provide reasons and
                                                                                the principle of equality and non-discrimination, annul
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                                the decision of the President of the European Parliament,
Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                      communicated to the appellant by means of letter
                                                                                No 109172, of 14 July 2000, in reply to a complaint
8 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                submitted by him on 2 December 1999;
The expression ‘entry in the accounts’ used in Article 1(2)(c) and in
the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)         —    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of                     assessment of the facts in support of the claim for
import duties or export duties which have not been required of the               compensation, the case to proceed to final judgment on
person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure               that matter;
involving the obligation to pay such duties refers to the administrative
act determining the amount of the import or export duties to be
collected by the competent authorities and not to the entry by the          —    in the event that the judgment of the Court of First
customs authorities in accounts books, or on equivalent computer                 Instance is quashed on the sole ground of infringement
media, of such amount. Such entry is not a condition prior essential             of the right to a fair hearing, refer the case back to the
to the taking of action for post-clearance recovery.                             Court of First Instance to hear the evidence previously
                                                                                passed over;
( 1) OJ 2001 C 227.
                                                                            —    order the European Parliament to pay the costs of these
                                                                                proceedings as well as those incurred by the appellant in
                                                                                Case T-194/00.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 274/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 21 August 2002,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 29 August 2002, for a
—     Error in law as regards application of the principle of           preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Radlberger Getränkege-
      sound administration: The appointing authority could              sellschaft mbH & Co., and 2. S. Spitz Kommanditgesellschaft
      not validly make a decision on the basis of a criterion           against Land Baden-Württemberg; intervener: Federal Republic
      which it itself, in the same administrative procedure, had        of Germany on the following questions:
      deemed unconvincing.
—     Error in law as regards determination of the requirements         1.    On a proper construction of Article 1(2) of European
      of the duty to provide reasons: There is nothing in the
                                                                              Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 Decem-
      contested decision to explain the change of direction                   ber 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994
      adopted by the appointing authority. The mere transfer                  L 365, p. 10) are Member States prohibited from
      of the holder of an office does not make it possible to
                                                                              favouring systems for reusing drinks packaging over
      ignore entirely the steps taken in a particular administrat-            recoverable non-refillable packaging where a Federal
      ive procedure by the authority itself. On the contrary, the             target for reusable packaging of 72 % is not reached by
      obligations under the duty to provide reasons require, in
                                                                              suspending the option of obtaining an exemption from a
      such circumstances, greater rigour in the explanations                  statutory return, disposal and deposit obligation in
      provided for the decision adopted.
                                                                              respect of empty non-refillable drinks packaging by
                                                                              participating in a return and disposal system for drinks
—     Error in law as regards the application of the principle of             sectors in which the proportion of reusable packaging
      equality and non-discrimination: The parameters utilised                has fallen below the level set in 1991?
      by the European Parliament changed to such an extent
      that its decisions, under the same legislative instrument,
      were rendered contradictory with regard to the solution
      offered to the heads of the information offices.                  2.    On a proper construction of Article 18 of Directive 94/
                                                                              62/EC are Member States prohibited from impeding the
—     Error in law as regards the conditions for the exercise of              placing of drinks in recoverable non-refillable packaging
      the right to a fair hearing: The rejection of the requests              on the market where a Federal target for reusable
      submitted by the appellant, both with regard to the                     packaging of 72 % is not reached by suspending the
      calling of witnesses and the production of documentary                  option of obtaining an exemption from a statutory return,
      evidence — in blatant contrast to the unsubstantiated                   disposal and deposit obligation in respect of empty non-
      statements by the European Parliament, at the hearing,                  refillable drinks packaging by participating in a return
      on the existence and relevance of certain documents,                    and disposal system for drinks sectors in which the
      without producing them — deprived the appellant of the                  proportion of reusable packaging has fallen below the
      opportunity to support in a conclusive manner its points                level set in 1991?
      of view and counter effectively the arguments put forward
      by the defendant institution.
                                                                        3.    On a proper construction of Article 7 of Directive 94/62/
( 1) OJ C 285, 7.10.2000, p. 17.                                              EC do producers and distributors of drinks sold in
                                                                              recoverable non-refillable packaging have a right to
                                                                              participate in an existing return and disposal system for
                                                                              used drinks packaging, in order to meet a statutory
                                                                              obligation to charge a deposit on non-refillable drinks
                                                                              packaging and to accept the return of used drinks
                                                                              packaging?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                        4.    On a proper construction of Article 28 EC are the
richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 21 August 2002
in the case of 1. Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH &                       Member States prohibited from enacting regulations
Co., and 2. S. Spitz Kommanditgesellschaft against Land                       providing that where a Federal target for reusable packag-
Baden-Württemberg; intervener: Federal Republic of Ger-                       ing of 72 % is not reached the option of obtaining
                                many                                          an exemption from statutory return, management and
                                                                              deposit obligations in respect of empty non-refillable
                                                                              drinks packaging by participating in a return and disposal
                          (Case C-309/02)                                     system is to be suspended for drinks sectors in which the
                                                                              proportion of reusable packaging has fallen below the
                                                                              level set in 1991?
                          (2002/C 274/28)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht


title: Case T-294/03: Action brought on 25 August 2003 by Jean-Louis Gibault against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 251/21
Action brought on 25 August 2003 by Jean-Louis Gibault                         decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant
  against the Commission of the European Communities                           from the list of successful candidates;
                        (Case T-294/03)
                                                                         —     order the defendant bear the applicant's costs.
                        (2003/C 251/38)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In support of his application the applicant invokes an alleged
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         violation by the Appointing Authority of the duty to give
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         reasons, as well as of the principle of equal treatment and
of the European Communities on 25 August 2003 by
                                                                         more specifically the principle of non-discrimination on the
Jean-Louis Gibault, Wattrelos, (France), represented by
F. Tuytschaever, lawyer.                                                 basis of nationality (Article 27 of the Staff Regulations). In the
                                                                         context of this latter plea the applicant claims that there are
                                                                         excessive nationality imbalances between German nationals
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              and nationals of other Member States in the total number of
                                                                         successful candidates. According to the applicant, these imbal-
                                                                         ances could only have resulted from the fact that the nature
                                                                         and the institutional settings of the examination were such as
—    Annul the open competition COM/A/6/01 in the field of               to favour German nationals and to put nationals of other
     external relations or, in a subsidiary way, annul the               member States at a disadvantage.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2003 in Case T-333/01: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European Communities (OCT — Action for damages — Duty of publication and control — Causal link)

text:
C 101/32                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       26.4.2003
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, B. Weggenmann
                        of 6 February 2003                                 and C. Røhl Søberg), the intervener before the Court of First
                                                                           Instance being Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber, established in
in Case T-7/01: Norman Pyres v Commission of the                           Homburg (Germany), represented by R. Lange: Action brought
                   European Communities ( 1)                               against the decision of the Third Chamber Board of Appeal of
                                                                           the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
(Member of the temporary staff — Extension of contract —                   Marks and Designs) of 12 February 2001 (Case R 251/2000-
                                Term)                                      3), concerning the registration of the sign MYSTERY as a
                                                                           Community trade mark, which was opposed by the national
                          (2003/C 101/56)                                  trade mark Mixery, the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
                   (Language of the case: English)                         rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges, Registrar: D. Christensen,
                                                                           Administrator, has given a judgment on 15 January 2003, in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-7/01, Norman Pyres, former member of the
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-                 1.     Dismisses the application;
ties, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vander-
sanden and L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                       2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(Agent: J. Currall): Application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s decision to extend the applicant’s temporary staff
contract for a term limited to six months, the Court of First              (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
Instance (P. Mengozzi, Single Judge); J. Plingers, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 February 2003,
in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                                of 13 February 2003
                                                                           in Case T-333/01: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   European Communities ( 1)
                        of 15 January 2003                                 (OCT — Action for damages — Duty of publication and
                                                                                control — Causal link)
in Case T-99/01: Mystery drinks GmbH v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                                          (2003/C 101/58)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
national trade mark Mixery — Application for Community                                         (Language of the case: French)
word mark MYSTERY — Proof of use of earlier mark —
Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                             No 40/94)
                                                                           In Case T-333/01, Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (French
                          (2003/C 101/57)                                  Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis, lawyer, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and B. Mar-
                                                                           tenczuk): Application for compensation for damage allegedly
                                                                           suffered by the applicant because of alleged maladministration
In Case T-99/01, Mystery drinks GmbH, in judicial liquidation,             by the Commission in the application of decisions on the
established in Eppertshausen (Germany), represented by T. Je-              association of the overseas countries and territories, the Court
staedt, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, v Office for                 of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/33
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2003, in
which it:                                                                                of 27 September 2002
1.     Dismisses the action;                                               in Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Public procurement — Rejection of tender — Failure to
                                                                           exercise power to seek clarification of tender — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Expedited procedure)
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited, of which the
                                                                           registered office is in Redhill, Surrey (United Kingdom),
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by C Thomas and C Kennedy-Loest, Solicitors,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J
                                                                           Forman) — application for annulment of the Commission
                       of 11 February 2003                                 decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the applicant’s tender
                                                                           in procurement procedure EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW —
                                                                           TACIS — (Re-tender) — the Court of First Instance (First
in Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt v European Parlia-                     Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood
                               ment ( 1)                                   and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 September 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
(Officials — Reports — Promotion — Amendment to the
                 rules — Transitional measures)
                                                                           1.     Annuls the Commission decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the
                                                                                tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited for Lot 1 in the
                          (2003/C 101/59)                                         tender procedure for EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW — TACIS
                                                                                — (Re-tender);
                    (Language of the case: French)                         2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
In Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in La Hulpe (Belgium), rep-
resented by H. Tagaras, avocat, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore) — application for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
resetting at zero the tally of promotion points held by the
applicant on 1 January 2000 — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura                                       of 13 December 2002
Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2003,               in Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
1.     The Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001 resetting at zero         (Action for annulment — Action becoming devoid of purpose
       the tally of promotion points held by Mr Leonhardt on                         — No need to adjudicate — Award of costs)
       1 January 2000 is annulled.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/61)
2.     The Parliament shall bear the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                           In Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
                                                                           Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt, living in Schoten


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 13 March 1996 in Case C-326/95: Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA v. Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and Others (Preliminary ruling - Inadmissible)

text:
No C 180/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 6 . 96
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Lisboa ( Lisbon Local Civil Court) for a preliminary ruling in
                         ( First Chamber )                            the proceedings pending before that court between Banco de
                                                                      Fomento e Exterior SA and Amândio Mauricio Martins
                       of 28 March 1996                               Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim,
in Case C-270/95 P: Christina Kik v . Council of the                  Confecçoes Têxteis de Vouzela Ld .a ( CTV ) — on the
European Union and Commission of the European                         interpretation of Articles 59 , 90 and 92 of the EC Treaty —
   Communities , supported by the Kingdom of Spain ( ! )              the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President,
(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark                 C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and
— Languages — Actions for annulment of measures —                     G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
Natural and legal persons — Acts of direct and individual             F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
    concern to them — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                    ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,
                                                                      P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges;
                           ( 96/C 180/36 )                            Advocate-General , D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar,
                                                                      R. Grass, made an order on 13 March 1996 , the operative
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         part of which is as follows :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                     The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Tribunal Civel da Comarca de Lisboa is inadmissible.
In Case C-270/95 P: Christina Kik, represented by Goosen
L. Kooy — appeal against the order of the Court of First              (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
Instance of the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of
 19 June 1995 in Case T-107/94 Kik v. Council and
Commission [1 995 ] ECR 11-1717, seeking to have that
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the
Council of the European Union ( Agents: Giorgio Maganza
and Guus Houttuin ) and the Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Pieter Van Nuffel ), supported by the
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto José Navarro Gonzalez
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
composed of D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber, P.                                     of 20 March 1996
Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-2/96: Criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino
28 March 1 996 , the operative part of which is as                                         and Giancarlo Data ( 1 )
follows :                                                             (Interpretation ofArticles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty)
1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                                                      ( 96/C 180/38 )
2 . The appellant is ordered to pay her own costs and the
    costs of the Council and the Commission . The                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
    intervener is ordered to bear its own costs .
(') O ] No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-2/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                      the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea ,
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Sezione di Strambino ( Ivrea District Magistrate's Court,
                       of 13 March 1996                               Strambino Division ) ( Italy ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
in Case C-326/95 : Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA v .
                                                                      Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data — on the interpretation of
    Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and Others (')                    Articles 48 , 55 , 59 , 60, 66 , 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty with
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)                      regard to national legislation which precludes private
                           ( 96/C 180/37 )                            undertakings from pursuing the activity of intermediary in
                                                                      the temporary employment market — the Court, composed
                                                                      of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris ,
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
                                                                      of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),
         published in the European Court Reports)                     C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
                                                                      and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General, M. B. Elmer;
In Case C-326/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Registrar, R. Grass, made an order on 20 March 1996 , the
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de                operative part of which is as follows :


title: Case C-213/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 — European Commission v Patrick Breyer, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Article 15(3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Scope — Application for access to written submissions filed by the Republic of Austria in the case in which judgment was given on 29 July 2010, Commission v Austria (C-189/09, not published, EU:C:2010:455) — Documents in the possession of the European Commission — Protection of court proceedings)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2017 — European Commission v Patrick Breyer, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-213/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Article 15(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Scope - Application for access to written submissions filed by the Republic of Austria in the case in which judgment was given on 29 July 2010, Commission v Austria (C-189/09, not published, EU:C:2010:455) - Documents in the possession of the European Commission - Protection of court proceedings))
   (2017/C 300/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Patrick Breyer (represented by: M. Starostik, Rechtsanwalt), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Breyer;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case F-21/16: Action brought on 28 April 2016 — ZZ v Frontex

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/50

         Action brought on 28 April 2016 — ZZ v Frontex
   (Case F-21/16)
   (2016/C 251/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Spyros A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Frontex

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract and the claim for damages for the loss of salary and pension rights.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Frontex’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract;

               —

               Order Frontex to compensate for the applicant’s loss of salary and pension rights;

               —

               Order Frontex to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-297/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nottingham Magistrates' Court): criminal proceedings against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and B. Denman (Social legislation relating to road transport — Tachograph record sheets — Obligation to record periods of work, breaks in work and rest periods)

text:
C 150/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.5.2001
3.    The implementation of a general exemption from value added            —     time which a driver necessarily spends travelling to take over a
      tax for the supply of premises and other facilities and for the             vehicle subject to the obligation to instal and use a tachograph
      related supply of accessories or other arrangements for the                 and which is not at the driver’s home or the employer’s
      purposes of the practice of sport or physical education, where no           operational centre, regardless of whether the employer gave
      such exemption is to be found in Article 13 of Directive                    instructions as to when and how to travel or whether that choice
      77/388, constitutes a serious breach of Community law that                  was left to the driver;
      can render a Member State liable in damages.
                                                                            —     periods of driving spent by a driver whilst performing a
                                                                                transport service falling outside the scope of Regulation
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.07.1999.                                                        No 3821/85 before taking over a vehicle to which that
                                                                                regulation applies.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 18 January 2001                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-297/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                              (Fifth Chamber)
the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court): criminal proceedings
against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley                                           of 18 January 2001
                         and B. Denman (1)
                                                                            in Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communi-
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Tachograph                              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
record sheets — Obligation to record periods of work, breaks
                     in work and rest periods)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                                97/13/EC)
                          (2001/C 150/10)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/11)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-297/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and                                          in the European Court Reports)
B. Denman — on the interpretation of Article 15 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on                          In Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities
recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8)                 (Agent: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                    P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann               bring into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate                     provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                     Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which                Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for
it has ruled:                                                               general authorisations and individual licences in the field of
                                                                            telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15), the
                                                                            Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
On a proper construction of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC)          of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in                    D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;
road transport, a driver’s obligation to record all other periods of        P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
work extends to:                                                            judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-315/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Vince v OHIM (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/31

         Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Vince v OHIM (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)
   (Case T-315/15)
   (2015/C 406/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dale Vince (Gloucestershire, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Longstaff, barrister)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ELECTRIC HIGHWAY’ — Application for registration No 010655819

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2015 in Case R 1442/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow the applicant’s application for the mark to proceed in full to registration;

               —

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

      Pleas in law

               —

               Incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the mark in relation to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Incorrect interpretation of the relevant services in Class 39;

               —

               The meaning of the mark asserted by the Board does not describe the services in any event;

               —

               Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-115/05: Action brought on 8 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/20

         Action brought on 8 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-115/05)
   (2005/C 106/39)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Braun, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions (1) and, in any event, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 1 January 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 28.