title: Case C-295/09: Action brought on 28 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/10

         Action brought on 28 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-295/09)
   2009/C 256/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC or, in any event, by not having communicated them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed to transpose Directive 2006/43/EC into national law ended on 28 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 157, p. 87


title: Case F-63/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 July 2014  — Psarras v ENISA (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — Termination of contract — Article 41(2)(a), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard — Non-pecuniary harm — Resulting unlawful decision — Excessive breach of the rights of a third party — Automatic compensation order — Non-compliance with an annulment judgment)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 July 2014 — Psarras v ENISA
   (Case F-63/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Termination of contract - Article 41(2)(a), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Non-pecuniary harm - Resulting unlawful decision - Excessive breach of the rights of a third party - Automatic compensation order - Non-compliance with an annulment judgment))
   2014/C 351/39
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristidis Psarras (Heraklion, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented initially by P. Empadinhas, acting as Agent and subsequently by S. Purser, acting as Agent, and C. Meidanis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment, firstly, of the decision to dismiss the applicant and, secondly, of the decision, adopted after the judgment of the CST in Case F-118/10, to appoint another member of staff to the post of accountant and, finally, compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 4 September 2012 of the Executive Director of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security terminating Mr Psarras’s temporary staff contract;

               2.

               Orders the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security to pay Mr Psarras the sum of EUR 40  000 euros;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Declares that the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Psarras.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013, p. 31.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 February2004 in Case T-320/02: Monika Esch-Leonhardt and Others v EuropeanCentral Bank (Officials — Personnel file — Letter concerning the transmissionof union information by electronic mail — Refusal to remove from applicants'personnel files)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/61

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 18 February 2004
   in Case T-320/02: Monika Esch-Leonhardt and Others v European Central Bank (1)

   (Officials - Personnel file - Letter concerning the transmission of union information by electronic mail - Refusal to remove from applicants' personnel files)
   (2004/C 106/122)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-320/02: Monika Esch-Leonhardt, Tillmann Frommhold and Emmanuel Larue, members of staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, (Germany) and Karben (Germany) respectively, represented by B. Karthaus, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European Central Bank (Agents: T. Gilliams, G. Gruber and B. Wägenbaur) – application for annulment of the decision to include in the applicants' personnel files a letter concerning their use of the internal electronic mail system for transmitting union information and, secondly, a claim for damages – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-320/02 R.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.02.


title: Case C-72/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Neubau Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-Hohensinner OEG, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg

text:
C 135/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                 Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA against
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of                    the judgment delivered on 16 December 1999 by the
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Neubau                       Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-Hohensinner OEG, Grund-                    First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-
verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundver-                 158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Com-
       kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg                                  mission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-72/00)
                                                                                (Case C-74/00 P)
                        (2000/C 135/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                        (2000/C 135/12)
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 December
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
the appeal concerning Neubau Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Hohensinner OEG, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission
Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes                  of the European Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA,
Salzburg on the following question:                                    interveners) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be        European Communities on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to          represented by Giulio Macrı̀, Massimo Condinanzi and Franco
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land                Colussi, with an address for service at 36, Rue de Wiltz,
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Luxembourg.
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by         1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                  the European Communities in Case T-158/96 between
case?                                                                      Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA, inter-
                                                                           veners);
                                                                       2. By so doing, annul Commission Decision 96/617/ECSC (1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz,                 In the alternative:
Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grund-
         verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
                                                                       3. In the event that the Court of Justice should decide that it
                         (Case C-73/00)                                    cannot make a decision as to the status of the measure, set
                                                                           aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and refer
                        (2000/C 135/11)                                    the case to another sitting of the Court of First Instance,
                                                                           indicating the points of law upheld in the present appeal.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               In any event:
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz, Bürgermeister der
Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des            4. Make any other decisions it may deem necessary.
Landes Salzburg on the following question:
                                                                       5. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Pleas and main arguments
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the            The contested judgment should be set aside on the following
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the         grounds:
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?                                                                  — Failure to declare that the rights of the defence had
                                                                           been infringed by the administrative decision and the
                                                                           inconsistency of the decision at issue;


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2002 in Case C-62/01 P: Anna Maria Campogrande v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Sexual harassment — Commission's duty of assistance — Liability)

text:
29.6.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 156/1
                                                                     I
                                                               (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
               OPINION 1/00 OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 18 April 2002
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC — Proposed agree-
ment between the European Community and non-Member                                                of 23 April 2002
States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation
                              Area)
                                                                         in Case C-62/01 P: Anna Maria Campogrande v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                        (2002/C 156/01)
                                                                         (Appeal — Officials — Sexual harassment — Commission’s
The Court of Justice has received a request for an opinion,                               duty of assistance — Liability)
lodged at the Court Registry on 13 October 2000 (1) by
the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to
Article 300(6) EC, on the compatibility with the provisions of                                     (2002/C 156/02)
the EC Treaty of a proposed agreement on the establishment
of a European Common Aviation Area (the ECAA Agreement)
to be concluded between the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech                                  (Language of the case: French)
Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the European Community,
the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic
of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of Norway,             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and the                                in the European Court Reports)
Republic of Slovenia (the Contracting Parties), and particularly
of the system of legal supervision provided for therein. The
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,                  In Case C-62/01 P, Anna Maria Campogrande, Commission of
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues              the European Communities, Brussels (Belgium), represented by
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, after hearing S. Alber,                   A. Krywin, avocat: Appeal against the judgment of the
First Advocate General, F.G. Jacobs, P. Léger, D. Ruiz-Jarabo            Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
Colomer, J. Mischo, A. Tizzano, L.A. Geelhoed and C. Stix-               Chamber) of 5 December 2000 in Case T-136/98 Campogran-
Hackl, Advocates General, gives the following Opinion:                   de v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-267 and ECR II-1225,
                                                                         seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, a finding that
                                                                         there was an act of sexual harassment and an order against the
The system of legal supervision proposed by the Agreement on the         Commission of the European Communities for compensation
establishment of a European Common Aviation Area in Articles 17,         for the non-material damage resulting from that wrongful
23 and 27 and Protocol IV is compatible with the EC Treaty.              conduct, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser,
                                                                         assisted by D. Waelbroeck), the Court (Third Chamber),
                                                                         composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, J.-
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.                                               P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
                                                                         J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 23 April 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.6.2002
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                3.    The Federal Republic of Germany is to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders Ms Campogrande to pay the costs;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                         of 30 January 2002
                         of 25 April 2002                                  in Case C-151/01 P: La Conqueste SCEA v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case C-323/00 P: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft
   mbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)                        (Community protection of geographical indications — Regu-
                                                                           lation (EC) No 1338/2000 — Registration of the name
                                                                           ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Inadmissibility of the
    (Appeal — ECSC — State aid to steel undertakings)                          action for annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                          (2002/C 156/03)                                                           (2002/C 156/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-151/01 P, La Conqueste SCEA, established in
                                                                           Morlaas (France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and
                                                                           F. Thiriez, avocats, appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                           First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case T-215/00 La Conqueste v Commission [2001] ECR II-
In Case C-323/00 P, DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH,                  181, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
represented by U. Theune and M. Luther: Appeal against the                 to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Communities (Agents: A.-M. Rouchaud and X. Lewis) — the
Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                  Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
T-234/95 DSG v Commission [2000] ECR II-2603, seeking to                   of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceed-            Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in which
K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by professor M. Hilf), Federal Republic          it:
of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by W. Kirchhoff
and M. Schütte) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  1.    Dismisses the action.
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Ros-                  2.    Orders La Conqueste SCEA to pay the costs.
as, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on , the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                           (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    DSG Dradenauer Stahlwerke mbH is to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam in A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Scope — Invalidity benefit — Continued entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam in A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope - Invalidity benefit - Continued entitlement to benefits after transfer of residence to another Member State)
   (2005/C 229/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-227/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank te Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 May 2003, received at the Court on 26 May 2003, in the proceedings between A.J. van Pommeren-Bourgondiën and Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 39 EC precludes legislation of a Member State pursuant to which a person who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory remains compulsorily insured in respect of some branches of social security only if he continues to reside there, whilst that person remains compulsorily insured under the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain other branches of social security even if his residence is in another Member State, in circumstances where the conditions relating to voluntary insurance, in respect of the branches for which compulsory insurance has ceased, are less favourable than those relating to compulsory insurance.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Joined Cases T-515/14 P and T-516/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Alexandrou v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Recruitment — Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Obligation to state reasons — Access to documents — Refusal of the request for access to the multiple-choice questions posed in the admission tests — Confidential nature of the Selection Board Proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Competence of the Civil Service Tribunal — Article 270 TFEU — Concept of act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(2) of the Statute)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Alexandrou v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-515/14 P and T-516/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 - Non-admission to the assessment tests - Obligation to state reasons - Access to documents - Refusal of the request for access to the multiple-choice questions posed in the admission tests - Confidential nature of the Selection Board Proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Competence of the Civil Service Tribunal - Article 270 TFEU - Concept of act adversely affecting an official - Article 90(2) of the Statute))
   (2016/C 007/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Christodoulos Alexandrou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Two appeals against the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 14 May 2014 in Alexandrou v Commission (F-34/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:93 and F-140/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:94), seeking to have those judgments set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal in case T-516/14 P;

               2.

               Sets aside, in part, in case T-515/14 P, the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 May 2014 in Alexandrou v Commission (F-34/13) to the extent that it:

                           —

                           did not give a response to the first plea in law, in so far as it alleged failure to state reasons, in that the particular circumstances would have justified giving Mr Christodoulos Alexandrou access to the questions at issue;

                           —

                           rejected the fourth plea in law;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal in case T-515/14 P;

               4.

               Dismisses the action in case F-34/13 in so far as it is based, first, on the failure to state reasons in the contested decisions in that Mr. Alexandrou raised individual circumstances justifying his access to the questions at issue and, secondly, on the plea in law alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial, alternatively, to an effective remedy;

               5.

               Orders each party in case T-516/14 P to bear its own costs;

               6.

               Orders each party in case T-515/14 P to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case C-246/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 184/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            2.8.2003
Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Protocol, the discharge into the            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
lake of the substances referred to in Article 6(1) is subject to                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
two, cumulative conditions: first, there must be a discharge
authorisation issued by the competent national authorities and,                                      (Case C-246/03)
secondly, that authorisation must take due account of all the
relevant provisions of Annex III to the Protocol. The French                                         (2003/C 184/43)
Republic has failed to comply with either of those two condi-
tions.
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 3.                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
(2) Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
    Pollution (Barcelona Convention), OJ L 240 of 19.9.1977, p. 3.          by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
(3) Council Decision of 25 July 1977 concluding the Convention for
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the
    Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean       The Commission claims that the Court should:
    Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft (OJ L 240 of 19.09.1977,
    p. 1).                                                                  —     declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, to
(4) Council Decision of 28 February 1983 concluding the Protocol for              notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and
    the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    land-based sources (OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 1).                             tive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
                                                                            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour adminis-                     each Member State to which they are addressed.
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the case
of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and                     Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
                           Elisabeth Paulus                                 to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                            to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                            Community.
                           (Case C-242/03)
                                                                            It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                           (2003/C 184/42)
                                                                            The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                            has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incor-
                                                                            poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      (1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
European Communities by order of the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 6 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus on the following question:
                                                                            Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Is Article 129c of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income
tax, as amended, in the version applicable to the 2000 tax
                                                                                (Case C-247/03)
year, which, subject to certain conditions and limits, grants tax
relief to taxpayers who are natural persons and acquire shares
representing cash contributions in fully-taxable resident capital                                    (2003/C 184/44)
companies, compatible with the principle of the free move-
ment of capital within the European Community as laid down
by Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty, taking account of the                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
restrictions on that principle laid down inter alia by                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
Article 58(1)(a) of the EC Treaty?                                          by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                            by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Minas Konstantinidis,
                                                                            of its Legal Service.


title: Case T-560/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meierhofer v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/36

         Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meierhofer v Commission
   (Case T-560/08 P)
   (2009/C 55/66)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: S. Meierhofer (Munich, Germany)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meierhofer v Commission;

               —

               Each party to bear its own costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meierhofer v Commission, in which the Tribunal set aside the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/26/05 of 19 June 2007 for infringement of the duty to state reasons.
   By the contested decision, the candidate's request for review of the selection board's decision that the candidate had not passed the oral test of the competition was dismissed. The candidate had fallen short of the required minimum mark in the oral test by half a point. According to the competition notice, the oral test was assessed by a single overall mark.
   The appeal is directed against the requirements of the duty to state reasons on a selection board and the review criteria of the Community judicature. The Commission challenges in particular the conclusion of the Civil Service Tribunal that in ‘particular circumstances’, for example in the case of a mark just under the minimum number of points, the duty to state reasons was not satisfied by communicating to the candidate excluded at the oral stage only a single mark leading to exclusion.
   The Commission argues that that approach leads to legal uncertainty:

               —

               First, the duty to state reasons must, in accordance with consistent case-law, be reconciled with the preservation of confidentiality which applies to the work of a selection board pursuant to Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and which forbids the dissemination of the opinions of individual members of the selection board and the disclosure of details in relation to the assessment of the applicants personally or in comparison with others.

               —

               Second, the comparison drawn by the Tribunal with cases concerning access to documents is inappropriate, since Article 6 of Annex III makes no provision for exceptional cases or the balancing of interests.

               —

               Third, the Tribunal overlooked the case-law according to which the duty to state reasons must stand in a proportionate relationship to the measure in question, and is simply designed to enable the Tribunal to review the legality of the decision. Since subsequent review of an oral test by the Community judicature is impossible in the nature of things, the latter has hitherto essentially confined its review to compliance with the competition regulations and the advertising of the competition.

         The judgment creates further legal uncertainty in relation to the distinction between various types of procedural measures, concerning requests for the production of confidential documents by an entity and the circumstances in which such requests may be refused (measures of organisation of procedure and orders for evidence to be taken). In the present case, the Tribunal also fundamentally misinterpreted the Commission's position, as the latter did not in any way refuse such production. The Commission merely explained that it could not produce the relevant documents on the basis of the measures of organisation of procedure ordered by the Tribunal, but was awaiting an order (for the production of evidence) of the Tribunal.


title: Case C-363/09: Action brought on 11 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/48

         Action brought on 11 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-363/09)
   2009/C 267/80
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by maintaining in force Article 38 of Law 43/2002 of 20 November 2002 on plant health, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 91/414/EEC (1)

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Directive 91/414/EEC responds to the need to harmonise the provisions of national law relating to the marketing of plant protection products. For that purpose it lays down uniform rules on the conditions and procedures for the authorization of such products.
   Article 13 of that Directive sets out the rules relating to (i) the data which must be submitted by applicants for the authorisation of a particular plant protection product and (ii) the use and protection of that data, safeguarding, apart from specified exceptions, the confidentiality of that data.
   The Directive is a complete harmonisation and, consequently, a Member State cannot adopt legislation at national level which requires economic operators to share data submitted by the first applicant for authorisation, except on the conditions laid down in Article 13(7).
   Nevertheless, Article 38 of Law 43/2002 permits access to data obtained from studies and experiments in circumstances other than those expressly provided in the Directive.
   The Commission considers that since the Kingdom of Spain has no discretion in relation to the transposition into national law of Article 13 of Directive 91/414/EEC and since it has not brought an action for the annulment of that provision, the introduction of an exception to the rules relating to access to data accompanying an application for authorisation of plant protection products, when that exception is not provided for in the Directive concerned, is an infringement of Community law.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p. 1)


title: Case C-672/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan — France) — Criminal proceedings against Noria Distribution SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/46/EC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements — Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements — Maximum amounts — Competence of the Member States — National legislation setting those amounts — Mutual recognition — Absence — Conditions to be respected and factors to be taken into consideration when setting those amounts)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan — France) — Criminal proceedings against Noria Distribution SARL
   (Case C-672/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/46/EC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements - Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements - Maximum amounts - Competence of the Member States - National legislation setting those amounts - Mutual recognition - Absence - Conditions to be respected and factors to be taken into consideration when setting those amounts))
   (2017/C 202/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan

      Party in the main proceedings

   Noria Distribution SARL,

      Intervening parties: Procureur de la République, Union fédérale des consommateurs des P.O (Que choisir),

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not provide for a procedure for the placing on the market of that Member State of food supplements whose content in nutrients exceeds the maximum daily doses set by that legislation and which are lawfully manufactured or marketed in another Member state.

               2.

               The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as meaning that the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 of that directive must be set on a case-by-case basis and taking into account all of the elements in Article 5(1) and (2) of that directive, in particular of the upper safe levels established, with respect to the nutrients at issue, after a comprehensive scientific assessment of the risks for public health, based not on general or hypothetical considerations, but on relevant scientific data. It is for the referring court to assess whether the method for the setting of those amounts at issue in the main proceedings complies with those requirements.

               3.

               The provisions of Directive 2002/46 and those of the TFEU relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding that the scientific assessment of the risks referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of that directive, prior to the establishment of upper safe limits which must in particular be taken into account in order to set the maximum amounts referred to in Article 5 thereof, be carried out solely on the basis of national scientific opinions, even though recent international scientific opinions concluding in favour of the possibility of setting higher limits are also available on the date of the adoption of the measure at issue.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Removal from the register of Case C-262/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/55)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-262/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.


title: Cases T-122/13 and T-123/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014  — Laboratoires Polive v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark dodie — Earlier national word marks DODOT — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Laboratoires Polive v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)
   (Cases T-122/13 and T-123/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark dodie - Earlier national word marks DODOT - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 409/52
   Language of the case: 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) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Arbora & Ausonia, SLU (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Cases R 2324/2011-2 and R 2325/2011-2, respectively) relating to two sets of opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausonia, SLU and Laboratoires Polive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-122/13 and T-123/13 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Cases R 2324/2011-2 and R 2325/2011-2);

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Laboratoires Polive;

               4.

               Orders Arbora & Ausonia, SLU to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case C-523/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/19

         Action brought on 23 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-523/04)
   (2005/C 57/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by entering into international arrangements with the United States of America or, notwithstanding the review of the agreement on air traffic of 3 April 1957 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America, enforcing obligations

                           —

                           concerning the fares of airline companies specified by the United States on intra-Community routes;

                           —

                           concerning the computerised reservation systems offered or in use in Netherlands territory,

                           —

                           whereby the right is conferred on the United States to withdraw, curtail or restrict transport rights where the airline companies specified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands are not in the hands of the latter or of Netherlands nationals,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services, and 2299/89 (2) of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised reservation systems, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993;

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   A.   Existence of a new agreement

               —

               The amendments made in 1992 to the 1957 agreement created the framework for closer cooperation between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands which entail appreciable new obligations for that country.

               —

               In light of the 1992 amendments the 1957 agreement was revised in its entirety. The fact that a number of provisions of that agreement were not formally amended in 1992 or only underwent inessential editorial changes, does not therefore alter the fact that the obligations flowing from those provisions were reaffirmed on the occasion of that review. In such a situation the Member States are not only not authorised to assume new obligations, but moreover may not operate such arrangements if they run counter to Community law.

         B.   Infringement of an exclusive external competence of the Community within the meaning of the AETR judgment

               —

               In 1991 the Netherlands and the United States added an annex to the 1957 agreement incorporating the CRS (computerised reservation systems) principles, including those concerning the availability or use of the CRS in Netherlands territory. On review in 1992 of the 1957 agreement the Netherlands applied that annex. In so doing the Netherlands infringed the Community's exclusive external competence flowing from Regulation No 2299/89.

         C.   Infringement of Article 52 of the Treaty

               —

               Community airline companies in the Netherlands may always be excluded from application of the agreement on air traffic between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States, whereas that agreement is automatically applicable to Netherlands airline companies. Community airline companies are thus discriminated against since, in the host State, that is to say the Kingdom of the Netherlands, they are not accorded national treatment.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 240, p. 15.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1993 L 278, p. 1.


               17.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 40/17

         Action brought on 8 November 2004 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-8/04)
   (2005/C 40/10)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 8 November 2004 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Elisabethann Wright, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by maintaining in force the provisions of Article 25 of the Banking Act, whereby a residence requirement is imposed on at least one member of the management board and of the executive management in a bank established on its territory, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to respect the freedom of establishment for which Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area provides; and

               2.

               Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               Article 31(1) EEA requires equal treatment between EEA nationals invoking their right to freedom of establishment and those nationals of the country where the establishment is effected.

               —

               Article 33 EEA provides a derogation from the right to freedom of establishment.

               —

               The EFTA Court has stated in Case E-3/98 Rainford-Towning [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 205, and Case E-2/01 Pucher [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 44, that ‘it is settled case law of the ECJ that the rules of equal treatment prohibit not only overt discrimination based on nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by applying other distinguishing criteria, achieve, in practice, the same result’.

               —

               Both the EFTA Court and the Court of Justice of the European Communities have concluded that ‘national rules under which a distinction is drawn on the basis of residence are liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Contracting Parties, as non-residents are in the majority of cases foreigners’. Rainford-Towning, paragraph 29.

               —

               The EFTA Court has further concluded that ‘[a]s regards justification on grounds of public policy, as envisaged in Article 33 EEA, it must be held that, in so far as it may justify special treatment of foreign nationals who are subject to the EEA Agreement, recourse to the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society’. Rainford-Towning, paragraph 42.

               —

               The EFTA Court has acknowledged that protection of the function and good reputation of the financial services sector is a legitimate public policy objective and that certain complications may arise from the fact that Liechtenstein is not party to the Lugano Convention.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2004 in Case C-107/03 P: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional soap-bar shape — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Distinctiveness)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 23 September 2004
   in Case C-107/03 P: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional soap-bar shape - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Distinctiveness)
   (2004/C 284/06)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-107/03 P: appeal brought on 27 February 2003 under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati (United States), (lawyer: T. van Innis) the other party to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and I. de Medrano Caballero) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21 June 2003.


title: Case T-34/12: Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/24

         Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)
   (Case T-34/12)
   2012/C 80/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herbacin cosmetic GmbH (Wutha-Farnroda, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2011 in Case R 2255/2010-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HERBA SHINE’ for goods in Class 3

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national and Community word mark and international registration ‘HERBACIN’ for goods in Class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the first sentence of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that, at the time of the first-instance opposition decision, an effective request for proof of use on the part of the applicant no longer existed; infringement of point (b) of the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal of OHIM erred in law in disregarding considerable export turnover under the opposing mark ‘HERBACIN’; and infringement of the first sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the proof of use submitted as regards customers within the Community was incorrectly assessed.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2003 nella causa C-244/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Kauppatalo Hansel Oy v Imatran kaupunki (Article 104(3) — Rules of Procedure — Procurement contracts — Directive 93/36/EEC — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Incorrect assessment as regards the criterion for determining the most economically advantageous tender — Procurement procedure discontinued)

text:
C 47/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the European
                                                                                Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 28 EC;
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                             2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                       of 11 December 2003
                                                                             (1) OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.
in Case C-122/03: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Measures having equivalent effect — Importers and distribu-
tors of medicinal products — Submission of a certified copy
or a document attesting to the holding of a marketing                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
                            authorisation)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                           (2004/C 47/16)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             nella causa C-244/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Kauppatalo Hansel Oy
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             v Imatran kaupunki (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Article 104(3) — Rules of Procedure — Procurement
                                                                             contracts — Directive 93/36/EEC — Procedures for the
                                                                             award of public supply contracts — Incorrect assessment as
                                                                             regards the criterion for determining the most economically
In Case C-122/03, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             advantageous tender — Procurement procedure discon-
(Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky) v French Republic
                                                                                tinued)
(Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes): Application for
a declaration that, by imposing, pursuant to Article R. 5142-
15 of the Code de la santé publique, on traders importing or                                           (2004/C 47/17)
distributing in France medicinal products which are already
covered by a marketing authorisation for the French or
Community market a requirement that they submit, when first                                     (Language of the case: Finnish)
so requested by the monitoring authorities, either a certified
copy issued by the Agence française de securité sanitaire des
produits de santé of the French marketing authorisation or of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the registration of the medicinal product, or a document issued                                 in the European Court Reports)
by that Agency attesting that the imported medicinal product
has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the European
Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 28 EC, the Court (Third Chamber),                  In Case C-244/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), acting for the Presi-                  EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
dent of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken,                   ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,                Kauppatalo Hansel Oy and Imatran kaupunki, on the interpret-
has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:                       ation of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
                                                                             coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
                                                                             contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1), as amended by European
1.    Declares that by imposing, pursuant to Article R. 5142-15 of           Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October
      the Code de la santé publique, on traders importing or                 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/
      distributing in France medicinal products which are already            EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
      covered by a marketing authorisation for the French or                 of public service contracts, public supply contracts and public
      Community market a requirement that they submit, when first            works contracts respectively (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1), the Court
      so requested by the monitoring authorities, either a certified         (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
      copy issued by the Agence française de securité sanitaire des          the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
      produits de santé of the French marketing authorisation or of          L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
      the registration of the medicinal product, or a document issued        an order on 16 October 2003, the operative part of which is
      by that Agency certifying that the imported medicinal product          as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 47/11
Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating                    2.   Are Articles 49 and 12 EC to be interpreted as meaning
procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by               that they do not apply to measures under Article 7 EC
Directive 97/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of                 and/or analogous bilateral foreign policy measures of
13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC                         individual Member States?
and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts, public supply contracts and public
works contracts respectively, must be interpreted as meaning that a
contracting authority which has commenced a procedure for the               3.   Are Articles 49 and 12 EC to be interpreted as meaning
award of a contract on the basis of the lowest price may discontinue             that there are other principles in the imposition of
the procedure, without awarding a contract, when it discovers after              sanctions under Article 7 EC for the avoidance of
examining and comparing the tenders that, because of errors                      discrimination than for other measures of State action? If
committed by itself in its preliminary assessment, the content of the            appropriate it would be necessary to clarify what formal
invitation to tender makes it impossible for it to accept the most               or substantive preconditions must be observed in that
economically advantageous tender, provided that, when it adopts such             connection.
a decision, it complies with the fundamental rules of Community law
on public procurement such as the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                            4.   Are the provisions of Article 81 EC to be interpreted as
(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.                                                       meaning that the prohibitions laid down therein also
                                                                                apply to actions of the Member States themselves or only
                                                                                to undertakings and associations of undertakings? Should
                                                                                the latter be the case then it must be determined whether
                                                                                Articles 49 and 12 EC are to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that actions of Member States which fail to observe the
                                                                                principles laid down in Article 81 EC in any event
                                                                                infringe the prohibitions on discrimination laid down in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bezirksgericht                         Articles 49 and 12 EC?
Dornbirn by order of that court of 16 December 2002 in
     the case of Helmut Horn against Dr Karl Schelling
                                                                            5.   Are Articles 49 and 12 EC to be interpreted as meaning
                           (Case C-44/03)                                        that demands for a boycott of the economy or parts of
                                                                                the economy of a Member State or measures likely to
                           (2004/C 47/18)                                        affect the economy of a Member State in such a way that
                                                                                competitive disadvantages may arise in that Member State
                                                                                are in any event unlawful and not permissible? Which
                                                                                conditions must be satisfied in order that in this respect
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           no infringements of the abovementioned provisions are
European Communities by order of the Bezirksgericht (District                    committed and to what extent are individual measures of
court) Dornbirn of 16 December 2002, received at the Court                       individual states in that connection also to be attributed
the Court Registry on 6 February 2003, for a preliminary                         to other states acting jointly?
ruling in the case of Helmut Horn against Dr Karl Schelling on
the following questions:
1.    Are the provisions of Article 49 et seq. EC and Article 12            6.   Are the provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 7
      EC to be interpreted as precluding, on the basis of the                    EC, to be interpreted as meaning that a foreign policy in
      report of the three EU wise men, the EU sanctions and                      regard to the imposition of sanctions is no longer
      thus as meaning that in the present case one of the                        available to the individual EU Member States or, in regard
      defendants’ fundamental rights guaranteed under EU law                     to the imposition of sanctions against individual EU
      was infringed? Under those sanctions                                       Member States, does the possibility of a bilateral foreign
                                                                                policy on the part of the individual Member States
                                                                                subsist?
      (a)   official bilateral diplomatic contacts at political level
            are no longer to be entertained with an Austrian
            government so composed;
                                                                            7.   Are the provisions of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
      (b) Austrian candidates are no longer to be supported in                   meaning that the imposition of sanctions without any
            selection procedures for international organisations;                formal procedure being pending under Article 7 EC and
            and                                                                  without any examination or in the absence of the
                                                                                substantive preconditions for sanctions under Article 7
      (c)   Austrian ambassadors are no longer to be received                    EC, even though those sanctions were published in the
            at political level (ministerial contacts) but henceforth             form of a measure of the European Union (EU Council),
            only at technical level (contacts with officials) and                constitute an act contrary to Community law or indeed a
            that in bilateral international relations there is no                non-act which is therefore irrelevant and unlawful as a
            business as usual with Austria?                                      sovereign act?


C 55/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                       8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-97/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/58)                                                         (2003/C 55/61)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/02 (Reference for a preliminary         from the register of Case C-97/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite Franchi SpA v            ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Rezzola Scavi Srl v
Ministero delle Finanze.                                               Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-95/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-98/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/59)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/62)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                       By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-95/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       from the register of Case C-98/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Ugine Srl v Ministero delle
                                                                       ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Villa Gemma SpA v
Finanze.
                                                                       Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-96/02 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-106/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/60)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/63)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-96/02 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): TOMAR Srl v Ministero             from the register of Case C-106/02: Commission of the
delle Finanze.                                                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case C-309/16: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Kärntner Ausgleichszahlungs-Fonds v Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Austria) — Kärntner Ausgleichszahlungs-Fonds v Österreichische Finanzmarktaufsichtsbehörde (FMA)
   (Case C-309/16) (1)

   (2017/C 129/21)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case C-152/08: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain)) — Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD, Nihat Kahveci v Consejo Superior de Deportes, Real Federación Española de Fútbol (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 37 of the Additional Protocol — Direct effect — Working conditions — Principle of non-discrimination — Football — Limit on the number of professional players from non-member States nationals who may be fielded per team in national competitions)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/14

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain)) — Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD, Nihat Kahveci v Consejo Superior de Deportes, Real Federación Española de Fútbol
   (Case C-152/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 37 of the Additional Protocol - Direct effect - Working conditions - Principle of non-discrimination - Football - Limit on the number of professional players from non-member States nationals who may be fielded per team in national competitions)
   (2008/C 285/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid
   Parties

      Applicants: Real Sociedad de Fútbol SAD, Nihat Kahveci

      Defendants: Consejo Superior de Deportes, Real Federación Española de Fútbol
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Interpretation of Art. 37 of the Additional Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 C 133, p. 17) — Working conditions — Rules laid down by sporting associations limiting the participation in certain competitions of professional players who are nationals of non-Member countries who are not parties to the EEA Agreement — Turkish professional sportsman with a work permit for access to the profession and a residence permit as required by national law.
   Operative part of the order
   The prohibition on all discrimination against Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour market of the Member States as regards remuneration and other conditions of work, as laid down by Article 37 of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 and Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, must be interpreted as precluding the application to a professional sportsman of Turkish nationality legally employed by a club established in a Member State, of a rule laid down by a sports association in that State, according to which clubs are authorised to field in competitions organised at national level only a limited number of players from non-member States which are not parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 1 April 2004 in Case C-47/03 P: Michael Cwik v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Reasons for judgment — Reorganisation of the administrative structures of the Commission — Re-assignment — Interests of the service — Misuse of powers — Duty to have regard to the interests of officials — Manifestly inadmissible appeal)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/28

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Third Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-47/03 P: Michael Cwik v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Reasons for judgment - Reorganisation of the administrative structures of the Commission - Re-assignment - Interests of the service - Misuse of powers - Duty to have regard to the interests of officials - Manifestly inadmissible appeal)
   (2004/C 118/50)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-47/03 P: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), (Lawyer: N. Lhoëst), appealing against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2002, Case T-103/01 Cwik v Commission, ECR-SC I-A-229 and I-1137) and seeking annulment of that judgment, the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges, D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders M. Cwik to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2004


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 June 1997 in Case T-104/96: Ludwig Krämer v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Determination of the level of a post - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law - Misuse of powers - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
No C 228/14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7. 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under those provisions,
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations or administrative
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive            — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     91 /676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
     protection of waters against pollution caused by                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     nitrates from agricultural sources ('), and, in
     particular, by not having designated vulnerable zones
     as provided for in Article 3 ( 2 ) thereof, or establishing      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     or submitting a code or codes of good agricultural               paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
     practice as provided for in Article 4 thereof, the               Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations         transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
     under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC               law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
     Treaty and Article 3 ( 2 ), Article 4 and Article 12 of          so. That period expired on 19 December 1993 without
     Directive 91 /676/EEC,                                           Portugal having brought into force the necessary
                                                                      provisions.
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith
     to inform the Commission of such measures, the                   (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (First Chamber)                                                        of 12 June 1997
                        of 12 June 1997                               in Case T-104/96: Ludwig Kramer v. Commission of the
in Case T-237/95 : Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v. European                                 European Communities ( J )
                         Parliament Í 1 )                             (Officials — Determination of the level of a post —
                                                                      Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Misuse of
(Officials — Internal competition — Appointment to a
                   post as Head of Division)                                  powers — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations)
                         ( 97/C 228/29 )                                                         ( 97/C 228/30 )
                (Language of the case: French)                                       (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-237/95 : Fernando Carbajo Ferrero, an official              In Case T-104/96 : Ludwig Kramer, an official of the
of the European Parliament, residing in Madrid,                       Commission of the European Communities, residing
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi ,                  in Tervuren ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
both of the Brussels bar, with an address for service in              Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
30 Rue de Cessange, against the European Parliament                   Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
( Agents: Norbert Lorenz and Alex Bonn) — application                 European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Denis
for the annulment of, first, the decision of the European             Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the Notice of
Parliament to appoint Mr X to the post of Head of                     Vacancy for the post of Head of Unit XI.B. 3 , classified at
Division of the European Parliament's office in Madrid                Grade A 5/A 4 ( COM/111/95 ), and consequently
following Internal Competition No A/88 and, secondly, its             annulment of the appointment of Mr K. to that post —
decision not to appoint the applicant to that post — the              the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of A.              of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,                    Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the                   given a judgment on 12 June 1997, the operative part of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 1997 in which              which is as follows :
it :
                                                                      1 . The application is dismissed.
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders each party to bear its own costs.                          2 . The parties shall bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .                                        H OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .


title: Case T-364/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/32

         Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Thomson Sales Europe v Commission
   (Case T-364/07)
   (2007/C 283/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Thomson Sales Europe (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: F. Goguel and F. Foucault, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 20 July 2007;

               —

               Rule that the applicant is entitled to exemption from post-clearance recovery of anti-dumping duties pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (1) and to Article 871 et seq. of Regulation No 2454/93 (2).

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision which it claims is contained in a Commission letter of 20 July 2007 stating that the Commission lacks the competence to rule on the applicant's request to the French authorities that it be exempted from post-clearance recovery of duties on the importation of colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand. The applicant's request was forwarded to the Commission by the French authorities as an annex to the application based on Article 239 of the Community Customs Code concerning the remission of import duties (3).
   The applicant claims that the Commission was also under an obligation to rule on the application based on Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code and, by way of a separate letter, requested it to take a decision. In the present action, the applicant contests a decision which it claims is contained in the Commission letter addressed to it in response to its own letter.
   The applicant claims that the Commission erred in law by finding that the French authorities had referred the case to it exclusively on the basis of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, given that, according to the applicant, the documents received by the Commission met the requirements of Article 871 et seq. of Regulation No 2454/93. The applicant takes the view that the Commission is under an obligation to examine whether the conditions for application of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code were met in this case, particularly in view of the fact that it had decided to reject its request for remission based on Article 239 of the Code.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

      (3)  Decision of the Commission of 7 May 2007 ruling on that application and indicating to the French authorities that it was not justified in the applicant's case to accord remission of the duties on importation which were the subject of an action for annulment before the Court of First Instance in Case T-225/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission (notice published in OJ C 211, 8.9.2007, p. 36).


title: Case T-699/14: Judgment of the General Court of 11 January 2017 — Topps Europe v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Abuse of dominant position — Grant of licences in respect of intellectual-property rights for football-related collectibles — Decision rejecting a complaint — Access to the file — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Manifest error of assessment — Relevant market — Exclusive licence — Single branding — Excessive prices)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 January 2017 — Topps Europe v Commission
   (Case T-699/14) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Abuse of dominant position - Grant of licences in respect of intellectual-property rights for football-related collectibles - Decision rejecting a complaint - Access to the file - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Manifest error of assessment - Relevant market - Exclusive licence - Single branding - Excessive prices))
   (2017/C 053/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Topps Europe Ltd (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, QC, then by R. Subiotto, QC, and A. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, lawyer, and subsequently by T. de la Mare, QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and M. Farley, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Barav and D. Reymond, lawyers) and Panini SpA (Modena, Italy) (represented by: F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and M. Varga, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5123 final of 15 July 2014 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant in Case AT.39899 — Licensing of intellectual-property rights for football collectibles.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Topps Europe Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Panini Spa.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-346/17: Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Hotelbeds Spain v EUIPO — Guidigo Europe (Guidego what to do next)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/68

         Action brought on 31 May 2017 — Hotelbeds Spain v EUIPO — Guidigo Europe (Guidego what to do next)
   (Case T-346/17)
   (2017/C 239/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hotelbeds Spain, SL (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guidigo Europe SARL (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the words elements ‘Guidego what to do next’ — Application for registration No 12 944 898

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 in Case R 449/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               grant the European Union trade mark application No 12 944 898, in classes 39, 41 and 43.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-476/08: Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/40

         Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY)
   (Case T-476/08)
   (2008/C 327/71)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Medai-Saturn-Holding GmbH (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by K. Lewinsky, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 in appeal proceedings R 0591/2008-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Best Buy’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42 (No 5 189 550).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for has the necessary minimum distinctive character.

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