title: Case T-358/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Arrom Conseil v EUIPO — PUIG France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci — Earlier EU word marks NINA RICCI and RICCI — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Arrom Conseil v EUIPO — PUIG France (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)
   (Case T-358/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci - Earlier EU word marks NINA RICCI and RICCI - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 392/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: PUIG France SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 1020/2014-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Puig France and Arrom Conseil.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Arrom Conseil to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and PUIG France SAS.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-161/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy)) — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA (Articles 92(1), 103(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Fixed-term employment contracts — Public sector — First or only contract — Derogation from the obligation to state objective reasons — Non-discrimination principle — Lack of connection to European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/18

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy)) — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-161/11) (1)

   (Articles 92(1), 103(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Fixed-term employment contracts - Public sector - First or only contract - Derogation from the obligation to state objective reasons - Non-discrimination principle - Lack of connection to European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2011/C 269/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vino Cosimo Damiano

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Trani — Interpretation of the general European Union principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Scope of those principles — Compatibility of national legislation validating in the national legal system a clause not specifying the reason for employment on a fixed-term basis for recruitment of workers at the SpA Poste Italiane

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the first question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) by decision of 7 February 2011.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


               13.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 400/16

         Action brought on 23 September 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-19/14)
   2014/C 400/07
   An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 September 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Markus Schneider and Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               The Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion sent to the Kingdom of Norway by the EFTA Surveillance Authority pursuant to Article 31(2) of that Agreement, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses the failure of Norway to comply, no later than 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion, delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that state’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA), to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority states that, by failing to adopt, by the date of the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Case E-9/11, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 SCA as interpreted by the Court in its judgment in Case E-18/10 [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 202, paragraphs 29-30.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-389/94

text:
No C 333/22           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9 . 12 . 95
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the                concluding from the file in the matter, as constituted, that
    proceedings.                                                     the condition giving rise to invalidity was irreversible in
                                                                     nature, despite the fact that the documents on the file
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     include numerous medical certificates showing that her state
                                                                     of health was good.
The applicant contends, first, that the defendant failed to
notify her that it had requested the President of the Court of       Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 25 of the
Justice, in accordance with Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff       Staff Regulations.
Regulations of Officials, to appoint the third doctor to sit on
the Invalidity Committee, and did not inform her of the
decision adopted in consequence of that request; she also
states that the doctor appointed to represent her did not
consider it necessary to advise her of his appointment, nor, a
fortiori, of the task with which he had been entrusted. In                Removal from the register of Case T-3 89/94 ( x )
those circumstances, the procedure by which the Invalidity
Committee was set up and instructed to act was seriously                                      ( 95/C 333/41 )
irregular.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant also states that the fact that she was left in
ignorance of all of the work carried out by the Invalidity
Commission prevented her from exercising her right under             By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Third
Article 9 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations to submit to the      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Committee any reports or certificates from her regular               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
doctor or from other medical practitioners .                         T-389/94 : Sebastiano Cordelia v. Comite Economique et
                                                                     Social des Communautes Europeennes .
She further considers that the Invalidity Committee has
breached the general principle of sound administration by            (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Case C-485/08 P: Appeal brought on 11 November 2008 by Claudia Gualtieri against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-284/06 Gualtieri v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/15

         Appeal brought on 11 November 2008 by Claudia Gualtieri against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-284/06 Gualtieri v Commission
   (Case C-485/08 P)
   (2009/C 32/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Dismiss all other claims, defences and pleas in law;

               —

               make the appropriate findings and orders;

               —

               uphold the pleas in law concerning the various questions dealt with and grant each of the forms of order relating to them, which are repeated in full, in any event, herein;

               —

               state the principles of law that the relationship between seconded national experts (‘SNE’) and the Commission of the European Communities is one of employment comparable to that of temporary staff and that the corresponding allowances paid to SNE are in the nature of remuneration;

               —

               declare that, under Community law, there should be equal pay for equal work and that, in any event, the payment to married persons of any remuneration different from that paid to single or co-habiting persons gives rise to discrimination against members of a family as defined by law;

               —

               in the alternative, declare that the allowances under Article 17 of the Decision on SNE are payable in full to the appellant from the date of her separation in fact or from the lodgement of the divorce agreement before the Tribunal de Bruxelles;

               —

               consequently set aside, in full or in part, the judgment under appeal delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 September 2008 and served on the following day, and uphold and grant, in full or in part, the claims and forms of order sought at first instance and on appeal, or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to make all necessary decisions on the merits;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal or, in the alternative, those of the proceedings at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   First of all, it is indisputable and clear on the basis of all the provisions governing the legal status of SNE that the link with the administration of origin is suspended throughout the secondment, and that during that period the national expert is fully integrated into the Commission's organisation, for the exclusive benefit of which the expert is required to perform his or her specific duties, with the consequent obvious equiparation (more precisely: identity) of his or her legal position to that of staff (at least temporary staff) who are, in their turn, equiparated to officials as regards conditions of employment and matters of remuneration.
   For that reason, and by virtue of the provisions of Article 141(2) EC (under which the concept of ‘pay’ includes any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly in respect of his employment, from his employer), which is a rule that takes precedence over Article 17 of the Decision on SNE, and of the Staff Regulations of officials and other servants of the European Union [sic] (third paragraph of Article 62: ‘remuneration shall comprise basic salary, family allowances and other allowances’), the corresponding allowances paid to SNE are in the nature of remuneration, like the equivalent allowances to which officials and other staff are entitled.
   The appellant therefore submitted that there was a general principle enshrined, in Community and other law, that there should be equal pay for equal work, which is apparent from the provisions of Article 14 of the ECHR, from Directive 2000/43/EC (1) of 29 June 2000, from Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 and from Articles 3(2), 136, 137(1)(i) and 141(1) EC.
   On the other hand, the interpretation followed by the Court of First Instance leads to two workers who perform the same work being paid unequally if the spouse of one of them is already resident in Brussels on the date of the act of secondment, causing serious discrimination against members of a family as defined by law, in spite of the strong protection which the family receives in national and international legislation, and the tendency of the laws of the various Member States, of the Staff Regulations (Article 1(1) and (2)(c) of Annex VII) and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights to equiparate cohabitation to it.
   Moreover, the allowances should have been paid in full, at the very least, from the date of cessation of cohabitation, since there is no indication, in the rules, of the alleged necessity to refer to the starting point of the relationship, without taking account of later changes.
   As regards the plea of illegality of Article 20 of the Decision on SNE, the appellant submitted, referring to Article 241 EC, that the grounds of fact and law on which that plea was based were set out in fully detailed and easily comprehensible fashion, so that the respondent had raised no objection, and that the reference to the said Article 241 EC was clearly intended to obtain, in any event, a decision on the disputed issues, even on the contested basis that the action was out of time.
   In addition, the appellant withdrew the plea in law concerning breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and applied for variation of the decision on the costs of the proceedings, which, under Articles 87 and 88 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, should have been fully recovered. Finally, she asserted that the fact that the Court of First Instance had considered and decided the dispute on the merits was unequivocal recognition of the action's admissibility, which can no longer be put in issue at this stage.
   Having stated the principles of law according to which the relationship between SNE and the Commission is one of employment, comparable to that of temporary staff, and that the allowances paid to SNE are remuneration, the appellant therefore claims that the Court should declare that, under Community law, there should be equal pay for equal work and that, in any event, the payment to married persons of any remuneration different from that paid to single or co-habiting persons leads to discrimination against members of a family as defined by law or, in the alternative, that the allowances under Article 17 of the Decision on SNE are payable in full to the appellant from the date of her separation in fact or from the lodgement of the divorce agreement before the Tribunal de Bruxelles.

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-76/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regional Court in Prešov (Slovak Republic) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Iveta Korčkovská

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regional Court in Prešov (Slovak Republic) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Iveta Korčkovská
   (Case C-76/10)
   2010/C 134/25
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Regional Court in Prešov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pohotovosť s.r.o.

      Defendant: Iveta Korčkovská

      Questions referred

   1.   Question one

               (a)

               Is information about the total cost to the consumer in percentage points (the annual percentage rate — APR) of such importance that failure to mention it in the contract could render the cost of consumer credit non-transparent and insufficiently clear and comprehensible?

               (b)

               Is it possible, under the consumer protection framework provided by Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to regard the price as an unfair condition in a credit contract on the grounds of insufficient transparency and clarity if the contract fails to set out information on the total cost of consumer credit in percentage points and the price is expressed solely as a financial sum consisting of various fees specified both in the contract and in the General Terms and Conditions?

         2.   Question two

               (a)

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing an application for enforcement of a final arbitral award issued without the participation of the consumer, is required of its own motion, where the necessary information on the legal and factual state of affairs is available to it for this purpose, to consider the fairness of a penalty contained in the credit agreement concluded by a creditor with a consumer if, according to national procedural rules, such an assessment may be conducted in similar proceedings under national law?

               (b)

               If the penalty for a violation of the consumer’s obligations is disproportionate, is it for this court to draw the necessary conclusions arising therefrom under national law to ensure that the consumer will not be bound by that penalty?

               (c)

               Can a penalty of 0,25 % per day on outstanding credit, i.e. 91,25 % p.a., be regarded as an unfair condition on the grounds that it is disproportionate?

         3.   Question three

   In the application of EU legislation (Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC), is the consumer protection framework of such a nature in relation to consumer credit agreements that, if a contract circumvents regulations designed to protect consumers in the field of consumer credit and if, under such a contract, an application is submitted for the enforcement of a ruling under an arbitral award, the court may discontinue enforcement proceedings or permit enforcement proceedings at the creditor’s expense only up to the outstanding amount of the credit granted, if, under national rules, such an assessment of an arbitral award is admissible and the court has the necessary information about the factual or legal state of affairs at its disposal?

      (1)  OJ L 112, p. 29


title: Case C-582/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Gerrit van Vemde (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Mutual recognition of judgments — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Scope — Article 28 — Transitional provision — Concept of ‘issue of the final judgment’)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Gerrit van Vemde
   (Case C-582/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition of judgments - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Scope - Article 28 - Transitional provision - Concept of ‘issue of the final judgment’))
   (2017/C 078/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Party in the main proceedings

   Gerrit van Vemde

      Intervening parties: Openbaar Ministerie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that it covers only judgments which became final before the date specified by the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-180/08 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2008 by Giuseppe Tiralongo against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07, Tiralongo v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/45

         Appeal brought on 15 May 2008 by Giuseppe Tiralongo against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07, Tiralongo v Commission
   (Case T-180/08 P)
   (2008/C 171/86)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer, R. Sciaudone, lawyer, and S. Frazzani, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the contested order of 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07, and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to rule on the substance of the case in the light of the guidance which the Court of First Instance sees fit to provide;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of Case F-55/07.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its forms of order sought, the applicant claims:

               —

               misapplication of the case law relating to the independence of legal remedies. In particular, the court of first instance misapplied the principles of case-law referring to compensation for damage caused by unlawful acts to a case in which, on the other hand, the harm was caused by unlawful conduct;

               —

               failure to state the reasons for the contested order inasmuch it is expressly states that the three claims of unlawfulness complained of by the applicant with regard to the conduct of the Commission concern, in fact, the unlawfulness of some acts;

               —

               misinterpretation of the case-law relating to the independence of legal remedies. In particular, the court at first instance was wrong to hold that the principle of the independence of remedies could have no effect in the present case;

               —

               failure to state reasons for the application for compensation for non-material damage. Regarding the many arguments comprehensively set out by the applicant to show the link between the non-material damage and the Commission's conduct, there is nothing in the contested order which makes it possible to understand the reasons on the basis of which those arguments were rejected.


title: Case T-598/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/19

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
   (Case T-598/14)
   2014/C 361/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.


title: Case T-330/00: Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Stefano Cocchi and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant accuses the Commission of infringing its right
                                                                        to a hearing, because on its inspection of the files it was
                                                                        not presented with all the relevant supporting documents.
The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official               Moreover, because of the improper conduct of the Spanish
Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the             authorities and the Commission, particularly in the area of
decision rejecting his request to be assigned to a third country        quota administration, special circumstances existed within the
pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of            meaning of Article 13 of the Regulation. It also maintains that
officials.                                                              there is no proof or any convincing evidence of alleged forgery,
                                                                        and that the Commission has explained the facts in a defective
The pleas in law and main arguments are largely identical with          and incomplete manner.
those relied upon in Case T-202/00.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
                                                                            repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979
                                                                            L 175, p. 1).
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch
Ex- und Import GmbH against the Commission of the
                    European Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Stefano Cocchi
                        (Case T-329/00)
                                                                        and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                        (2000/C 372/30)
                                                                                (Case T-330/00)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/31)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch                                    (Language of the case: French)
Ex- und Import GmbH, established in Troisdorf, Germany,
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechstsanwalt, Cologne.                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 October 2000 by Stefano
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Cocchi and Evi Hainz, residing in Italy, represented by Georges
                                                                        Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
—     annul Commission Decision K(2000) 2207 endg. of
      25 July 2000 (REM 49/99);
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to
                                                                              Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 16 March 2000 and of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               22 February 2000 not to accept the applicants’ candi-
                                                                              dature for the posts advertised in vacancy notices
                                                                              COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000 and
The action is brought against the Commission’s decision of                    COM/R/5500/00 of 24 January 2000, or, in the alterna-
25 July 2000, in which the latter refused the application by                  tive, to annul those vacancy notices;
the Federal Republic of Germany to grant the applicant
remission of import duties for the importation of beef on the           —     annul the appointments made by the AECC, of unknown
basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1). The                   date, in the context of the recruitment procedures put in
Commission maintains in the contested decision that the                       motion by those two vacancy notices;
extracts submitted by the applicant at the time of import
clearance were forgeries, and that licence forgeries fall within
the business risk of the applicant. Neither the Spanish auth-           —     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
orities which issued the licences nor the Commission had                      for the damage suffered as a result of that decision, such
acted improperly, so the normal business risk to be borne by                  sum being set ex aequo et bono and provisionally;
importers of goods benefiting from customs advantages was
not exceeded.                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 372/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to
The applicants are former temporary agents working for the                    Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 16 March 2000, 3 Februa-
Commission at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at Ispra, Italy.                ry 2000, 17 March 2000, 17 January 2000 and 16 March
                                                                              2000 not to accept the applicants’ candidature for the
                                                                              posts advertised in vacancy notices COM/R/5526/00 of
By the contested decisions, the Commission informed the                       24 February 2000, COM/R/5889/99 of 21 December
applicants that their applications for the two vacant posts had               1999, COM/R/5520/00 of 24 February 2000,
not been taken into consideration.                                            COM/R/5863/99 of 26 November 1999 and
                                                                              COM/R/5521/00 of 24 February 2000, or, in the alterna-
                                                                              tive, to annul those vacancy notices and, in so far as
The applicants criticise the Commission for having given                      necessary, annul the decision of the AECC of 25 July
priority to applications from officials, which were examined                  2000 rejecting the applicants’ complaints;
and compared on their own, without those of temporary
agents, including the candidatures of the applicants, being             —      order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
examined at the same time. By failing to consider the
                                                                              for the damage suffered as a result of that decision, such
comparative merits of all the candidatures, the Commission
                                                                              sum being set ex aequo et bono and provisionally;
infringed Articles 4, 7, 27, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations
and Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of other
servants and breached the principle of non-discrimination.              —     order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs.
Moreover, the applicants claim that the contested decisions are
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
devoid of any formal statement of reasons. Furthermore, they
were not taken in the interest of the service and are not
compatible with the new policy of the Commission vis-à-vis              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
research staff. Finally, the applicants take the view that the          relied on in Case T-330/00 Cocchi and Heinz v Commission.
contested decisions are acts of mismanagement and are
contrary to the duty of the administration to have regard for
the welfare of officials.
                                                                        Action brought on 3 November 2000 by Rougemarine
                                                                        SARL against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-333/00)
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Laurence Bories
and 4 others against Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                                            (2000/C 372/33)
                         (Case T-331/00)                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (2000/C 372/32)
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 3 November 2000 by Rougemarine
                                                                        SARL, whose registered office is at Paris, represented by
                                                                        Thierry Levy, of the Paris Bar.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
European Communities on 26 October 2000 by Laurence
                                                                              the European Communities of 5 September 2000;
Bories and Philippe Chemin, Laura Copes, Emanuele Mondini
and Helen Preissler, residing in Italy, represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                       —     annul Council Decision 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995;


title: Case C-293/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Gebhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope ratione materiae — Activities which are connected with the exercise of official authority — The trade of chimney sweep — Fire safety regulation tasks — Territorial restriction of the licence to trade — Service of general economic interest — Necessity — Proportionality)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Gebhart Hiebler v Walter Schlagbauer
   (Case C-293/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope ratione materiae - Activities which are connected with the exercise of official authority - The trade of chimney sweep - Fire safety regulation tasks - Territorial restriction of the licence to trade - Service of general economic interest - Necessity - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 068/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gebhart Hiebler

      Defendant: Walter Schlagbauer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as covering, in all respects, the pursuit of a trade, such as the trade of chimney sweep as described in the main proceedings, even though that trade entails the performance not only of private economic activities but also of fire safety regulation tasks.

               2.

               Articles 10(4) and 15(1), (2)(a) and (3) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits, in all respects, a license to trade as a chimney sweep to a particular geographical area, if that legislation does not seek to attain, in a consistent and systematic manner, the objective of public health protection, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.
               Article 15(4) of Directive 2006/123 must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation where fire safety regulation tasks are classified as tasks connected with a service of general economic interest, provided that the territorial restriction imposed is necessary and proportionate to the performance of those tasks under economically viable conditions. It is for the national court to carry out that assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tariefcommissie by decision of that court of 3 March 1995 in the case of Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland) BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Venlo (Case C-67/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht of            how is the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by
Land Brandenburg by order of that court of 21 February                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2587/91 , to be interpreted for the
1995 in the case of Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich                   purposes of the tariff classification of the Xerox 3010 and
      Biiker GmbH &c Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Cottbus                      Xerox 3010 Editor machines described in the body of the
                          ( Case C-64/95 )                              present reference ? ( J )
                            ( 95/C 101 /11 )
                                                                        f 1 ) The Xerox 3010 and Xerox 3010 Editor machines can transmit
                                                                              fax messages and copy at the same time , while the Xerox 3010
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Editor can also edit the images received ( enlargement or
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of                      reduction of the full image or part of it). Photocopying takes
the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) of Land Brandenburg of                    place by means of a scanner which scans the information in a
21 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                   document and stores it in the form of digital units in the
on 10 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    machine's memory, from where it can be retrieved for printing
Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich Biiker GmbFl & Co KG                        in legible form on paper.
v. Flauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Cottbus on the
following questions :
1 . has Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1932/93 of
      16 July 1993 as rectified by the corrigendum published
      in the Official Journal of the European Communities (' )
      come into being with legal effect ?                                       Removal from the register of Case C-181/94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /13 )
2 . If so, are the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1932/93 also applicable to imports of sour cherries            By order of 13 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
      effected up until 20 July 1993 ?                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-181/94 : Commission of the
3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative :                 European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
      (a ) were the preconditions present in 1993 for a
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
            measure for the organization of the market for sour
            cherries in 1993 ?
      ( b ) Is the minimum price system a permissible,
            appropriate measure for eliminating the
            disturbance to the market ?
      (c ) Is the minimum price system compatible with the                      Removal from the register of Case C-223/94 ( J )
            Interim Agreements of 25 February 1992 between
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/14 )
            the European Community and the Republic of
            Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and
            Slovak Federal Republic ?                                   By order of 20 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
t 1 ) OJ No L 176 , 20 . 7. 1993 , p. 29 .                              from the register of Case C-223/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v . Ireland .
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tariefcommissie
by decision of that court of 3 March 1995 in the case of
Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v. Inspecteur
              der Invoerrechten en Acciinzen, Venlo
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-265/94 ( l )
                            Case C-67/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 / 15
                            ( 95/C 101/12 )
                                                                        By order of 15 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities by a decision of the                           from the register of Case C-265/94 : Commission of the
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and                   European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Excise ) of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 13 March 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
case of Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v.
Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Inspector of
Customs and Excise ), Venlo, on the following question:


title: Case T-132/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2014 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
      (Case T-132/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/42)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Lucknow, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Casucci and N. Ferretti, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 January 2012 (Case R 2308/2010-1);

                  2.

                  Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scooters India Ltd, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

                  3.

                  Orders Brandconcern BV to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-217/07: Order of the President of the Court of 20 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-217/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/72)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-339/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato sitting in judicial capacity (Sixth Chamber) by order of that court of 24 February 2004, in the case of Nuova Società di Telecomunicazioni SpA against Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Ministry of Communications)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato sitting in judicial capacity (Sixth Chamber) by order of that court of 24 February 2004, in the case of Nuova Società di Telecomunicazioni SpA against Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Ministry of Communications)
   (Case C-339/04)
   (2004/C 251/11)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato sitting in judicial capacity (Sixth Chamber) (Italy) of 24 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Nuova Società di Telecomunicazioni SpA against Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Ministry of Communications) and ENI SpA on the following questions:

               (a)

               Is a national provision which — having required companies entitled to provide public utility services, which have established telecommunications networks in the past to meet their own needs under a system of paid franchises, to set up a separate company to carry out any activity in the field of telecommunications — provides that the separate company, although licensed to provide public services, must pay, albeit only on a temporary basis, an additional fee for the allocation of the telecommunications network to the parent company, compatible with the basic principles laid down in the abovementioned Directive 97/13? (1)

               (b)

               Is a national provision which calculates (it should be stressed, on a temporary basis) the second and additional fee charged for the activity carried out for the parent company on the basis of what was paid in the past by the parent company under the previous system of exclusive rights, with separate franchises for telecommunication systems for public use and franchises for systems for private use, consistent with Community law and the interpretation placed thereon by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice in its judgment of 18 September 2003?

      (1)  OJ L 117, p. 15.


title: Case T-29/11: Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2014  — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission (Arbitration clause — Programme of Community action in the field of public health — Contract for the funding of a project — Action for annulment — Debit note — Contractual nature of the dispute — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility — Reclassification of the action — Eligible costs)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2014 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission
   (Case T-29/11) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Programme of Community action in the field of public health - Contract for the funding of a project - Action for annulment - Debit note - Contractual nature of the dispute - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility - Reclassification of the action - Eligible costs))
   (2014/C 439/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Technische Universität Dresden (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Bogensberger and D. Calciu, and subsequently by W. Bogensberger and F. Moro, acting as Agents, assisted by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of debit note No 3241011712, issued by the Commission on 4 November 2010, for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 55  377 ,62 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance in support of a project conducted under the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that Ms H’s staffing costs, amounting to EUR 56,76, her travel expenses, amounting to EUR 1  354,08, and the service costs amounting to EUR 351,82 incurred by Technische Universität Dresden in performing Contract No 203114 (SI2.377438) concerning the funding of the project ‘Collection of European Data on Lifestyle Health Determinants — Coordinating Party (LiS)’ conducted under the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) are eligible and, consequently, dismisses the European Commission’s claim regarding those amounts, set out in Debit Note No 3241011712 of 4 November 2010, as unfounded;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Technische Universität Dresden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011


title: Case T-378/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark English pink — Earlier Community word mark PINK LADY and earlier Community figurative mark Pink Lady — Obligation to state reasons — Duty of diligence — Decisions by a Community trade mark court — No res judicata)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink)
   (Case T-378/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark English pink - Earlier Community word mark PINK LADY and earlier Community figurative mark Pink Lady - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of diligence - Decisions by a Community trade mark court - No res judicata))
   (2015/C 155/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carolus C. BVBA (Nieuwerkerken, Belgium)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2013 (Case R 1215/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion, on the one hand, and Carolus C. BVBA, on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2013 (Case R 1215/2011-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and by Star Fruits Diffusion;

               4.

               Orders Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion to bear half of their costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-177/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Biedrība ‘Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’ v Konkurences padome

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 29 March 2016 — Biedrība ‘Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’ v Konkurences padome
   (Case C-177/16)
   (2016/C 200/18)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant at first instance: Biedrība ‘Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība’

      Defendant at first instance: Konkurences padome

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applicable to a dispute concerning the rates laid down by a national copyright management organisation if that entity also collects remuneration in respect of works of foreign authors and the rates laid down by it may be a deterrent to the use of those works in the Member State in question?

               2.

               For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient — and in which cases — to draw a comparison between the prices (rates) in the market in question and the prices (rates) in neighbouring markets?

               3.

               For the purpose of defining the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the context of the management of copyright and related rights, is it appropriate and sufficient to use the purchasing power parity index based on gross domestic product?

               4.

               Must the comparison of rates be made for each separate segment thereof or in relation to the average level of the rates?

               5.

               When must it be considered that the difference in the rates examined in connection with the concept of unfair prices used in subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is appreciable, with the result that it is incumbent upon the economic operator enjoying a dominant position to demonstrate that its rates are fair?

               6.

               What information can reasonably be expected from an economic operator to prove the fair nature of the rates for works covered by copyright, within the scope of subparagraph (a) of [the second paragraph] of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, if the cost of those works cannot be determined in the same way as that of products of a material nature? Is it solely a question of the cost of administering the copyright management organisation?

               7.

               In the event of infringement of competition law, is it appropriate to exclude from the business turnover of a copyright management organisation, for the purposes of determining a fine, the remuneration paid to authors by that economic operator?


title: Case T-13/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Koinotita Grammatikou v Commission (Action for annulment — Cohesion Funds — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Koinotita Grammatikou v Commission
   (Case T-13/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Cohesion Funds - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 32/67)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Koinotita Grammatikou (Greece) (represented by: M Chaïntarlis and A. Papakonstantinou, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and L. Flynn, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 5509 of 21 December 2004 relating to the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Construction of a Landfill Site at the Integrated Waste Management Facility of North-East Attica at the location “Mavro Vouno Grammatikou”’.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Koinotita Grammatikou is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-217/15: Request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) of 11 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/8

         Request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) of 11 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi
   (Case C-217/15)
   (2015/C 245/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

      Party to the main proceedings

   Massimo Orsi

      Questione pregiudiziale

   On a proper construction of Article 4 of [Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Article 50 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], is the provision made under Article 10b of Legislative Decree No 74/00 consistent with Community law, in so far as it permits the criminal liability of a person to whom a final assessment by the tax authorities of the State has already been issued imposing an administrative penalty in the sum of 30 % of the unpaid amount to be assessed in respect of the same act or omission (non-payment of VAT)?


title: Case T-686/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing two lines and four stars — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of concrete assessment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and four stars)
   (Case T-686/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing two lines and four stars - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of concrete assessment - Duty to state reasons))
   2014/C 361/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Bénard, A. Rudoni and O. Klimis, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2013 (case R 300/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing two lines and 4 stars as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2013 (case R 300/2013-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal of Unibail Management for products and services falling within classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-320/15: Order of the General Court of 15 April 2016 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission (Public procurement — Withdrawal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/21

         Order of the General Court of 15 April 2016 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission
   (Case T-320/15) (1)

   ((Public procurement - Withdrawal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 200/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, C. Santacroce and C. Toniolo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of 7 April 2015 of the Director General of the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC.B6/RL/Ares(2015)) excluding the applicant from participation in all procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of two years and 10 months.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case C-162/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise (Italy) lodged on 18 March 2016 — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise (Italy) lodged on 18 March 2016 — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni
   (Case C-162/16)
   (2016/C 200/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Monteroduni

      Question referred

   Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out either in the tender rules or on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

      (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case C-614/15: Order of the Court of 21 September 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Veterinary assistant in the veterinary health inspection sector — Public sector — Clause 5(1) — Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the use of such contracts — Replacements for vacant posts pending completion of competition procedures)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/13

      Order of the Court of 21 September 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj
      (Case C-614/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Veterinary assistant in the veterinary health inspection sector - Public sector - Clause 5(1) - Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the use of such contracts - Replacements for vacant posts pending completion of competition procedures))
      (2016/C 454/25)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Craiova

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Rodica Popescu

         Defendant: Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

         Operative part of the order

      Clause 5(1) of the of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts, in the public sector, is deemed justified by ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause on the sole ground that inspections performed by staff employed in the veterinary health sector are non-permanent in nature due to the variations in volume of the activities of the establishments to be inspected, unless the renewal of those contracts is actually aimed at covering a specific need in the relevant sector, without the underlying reason being budgetary considerations, which it is for the national court to verify. Moreover, the fact that the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts is done pending completion of competition procedures does not make those rules compliant with that clause where the actual application thereof leads, in reality, to abusive recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts, which it is also for the national court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case C-515/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luis das Neves Palhota, Termiso Limitada (Freedom to provide services — Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU — Posting of workers — Restrictions — Employers established in another Member State — Registration of prior declaration of posting — Social or labour documents — Equivalent to those provided for under the law of the host Member State — Copy — Keeping available to the national authorities)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luis das Neves Palhota, Termiso Limitada
   (Case C-515/08) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Posting of workers - Restrictions - Employers established in another Member State - Registration of prior declaration of posting - Social or labour documents - Equivalent to those provided for under the law of the host Member State - Copy - Keeping available to the national authorities)
   2010/C 328/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luis das Neves Palhota, Termiso Limitada

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC — National legislation requiring construction sector undertakings carrying out works in a Member State on a temporary basis to provide a declaration of posting to the authorities in the host country

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU preclude national legislation requiring an employer, established in another Member State and posting workers to the territory of the first Member State, to send a prior declaration of posting, in so far as the employer must be notified of a registration number for the declaration before the planned posting may take place and the national authorities of that first State have a period of five working days from receipt of the declaration to issue that notification.
   Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU do not preclude national legislation requiring an employer, established in another Member State and posting workers to the territory of the first Member State, to keep available to the national authorities of the latter, during the posting, copies of documents equivalent to the social or labour documents required under the law of the first Member State and also to send those copies to the authorities at the end of that period.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-776/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO (MEISSEN KERAMIK) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN KERAMIK — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Meissen Keramik v EUIPO (MEISSEN KERAMIK)
      (Case T-776/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark MEISSEN KERAMIK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 441/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meissen, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and M. Bagh, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 531/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MEISSEN KERAMIK as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Messen Kermaik GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case C-325/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 June 2016 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. v Administración General del Estado, Sapec Agro, S.A.

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 June 2016 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. v Administración General del Estado, Sapec Agro, S.A.
   (Case C-325/16)
   (2016/C 305/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A.

      Respondents: Administración General del Estado, Sapec Agro, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the deadline set in Directive 2010/28/EU (1) by the use of the phrases ‘by 31 December 2010’ in Article 3(1) and ‘by that date’ in the second paragraph of Article 3(1), which also refers to 31 December 2010, in conjunction with the period of six months referred to in Recital 8 of the preamble to Directive 2010/28/EU, a mandatory time-limit by virtue of the purpose sought by the system established by Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) of 15 July 1991, and not susceptible of extension by the Member States, such that it must be calculated exclusively in accordance with the directive?

               2.

               In the event that it is held that the time-limit is capable of extension, is the decision concerning such an extension to be taken without regard to any specific procedural rules concerning applying for and granting the extension or does it fall within the competence of the Member States, which must decide the question in accordance with domestic legislation since they are the addressees of the provisions establishing the procedure under Article 3(1) of the directive?

      (1)  Commission Directive 2010/28/EU of 23 April 2010 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include metalaxyl as active substance (OJ 2010 L 104, p. 57).

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


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 April 1999 in Case C-360/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Herman Nijhuis v Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (Social security - Incapacity for work - Special scheme for civil servants - Point 4(a) of Section J of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty)

text:
C 204/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings brought before                  court as against the national authorities, rendering inapplicable
that court by Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) — on the                  any contrary rule of national law.
interpretation of Article 18(1) of the First Council Directive
(73/239/EEC) of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the                 (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other
than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), as amended by
Article 26 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992
on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance
and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Third
Non-life Insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1), and of
Article 21(1) of the First Council Directive (79/267/EEC) of
5 March 1979 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the business of direct life assurance (OJ 1979 L 63, p. 1), as
amended by Article 27 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of
10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations                                           of 20 April 1999
and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance
and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third
Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) — the                     in Case C-360/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.-P.            the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Herman Nijhuis v Bestuur
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C.               van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (1)
Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray,
D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von                  (Social security — Incapacity for work — Special scheme for
Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 April           civil servants — Point 4(a) of Section J of Annex VI to
1999, in which it has ruled:                                              Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 48 and 51 of the
                                                                                EC Treaty)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/03)
1. On a proper construction of Article 18(1) of the First Council                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
    Directive (73/239/EEC) of 24 July 1973 on the coordination
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
    taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other
    than life assurance, as amended by Article 26 of Council              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of                               in the European Court Reports)
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct
    insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives
    73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance                   In Case C-360/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    Directive), and of Article 21(1) of the First Council Directive       the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher
    (79/267/EEC) of 5 March 1979 on the coordination of                   Social Security Court) (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                          the proceedings pending before that court between Herman
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
                                                                          Nijhuis and Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verze-
    taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct life assurance, as
                                                                          keringen — on the interpretation of Point 4(a) of Section J of
    amended by Article 27 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10            Annex VI to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
    November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and            14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
    administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and       employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
    amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third Life             of their families moving within the Community, and of Point
    Assurance Directive), a rule of national law may not prohibit         2(b) of Section J of Annex 2 to Council Regulation (EEC)
    insurance undertakings from holding, as their free assets, shares     No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for
    representing more than 5 % of all the voting rights in a domestic     implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
    or foreign public limited company without administrative author-      updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
    isation.                                                              1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as adapted by Annex I, Part VIII,
                                                                          to the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the
                                                                          Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the
                                                                          Adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23) — the
                                                                          Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G.
                                                                          Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch (Presidents of
                                                                          Chambers), G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
2. Article 18(1) of Directive 73/239, as amended by Article 26 of         mann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cos-
    Directive 92/49, and Article 21(1) of Directive 79/267, as            mas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
    amended by Article 27 of Directive 92/96, are sufficiently            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 April 1999, in
    precise and unconditional to be relied upon before the national       which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/3
Point 4(a) of Section J of Annex VI to Council Regulation (EEC)            1. Dismisses the application;
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to               2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
members of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
1983, as adapted by Annex I, Part VIII, to the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese         (1) OJ C 76 of 12.3.1994.
Republic and the Adjustments to the Treaties, must be interpreted as
not requiring the competent Netherlands institution, to which an
application for a pro rata invalidity benefit has been made by a
worker who has suffered an incapacity for work which arose in
another Member State, to treat the periods of insurance completed by
that worker in the Netherlands after 1 July 1967 under a special
scheme for civil servants as if they were periods of insurance
completed under the Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering of
18 February 1966.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                                                                           in Case C-340/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Irland (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 80/778/EEC —
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   Water intended for human consumption — Rules designed
                                                                               to ensure implementation of water-quality standards)
                         of 22 April 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 204/05)
in Case C-28/94 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1990 financial year
                             — Butter)
                          (1999/C 204/04)                                  In Case C-340/96: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: Richard B. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great
                                                                           Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted
                                                                           by Derek Wyatt and Mark Hoskins) — application for a
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          declaration that by failing, by the acceptance of undertakings,
                                                                           — to enforce compliance by water companies with the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          requirements of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
                   in the European Court Reports)                               1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
                                                                                consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11) and
In Case C-28/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: J.W. de
Zwaan and J.S van den Oosterkamp) v Commission of the                      — by failing thereby, to ensure that the quality of water
European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and M. van der                        supplied in several parts of the United Kingdom conforms
Woude) — application for partial annulment of Commission                        to the requirements of that Directive in that maximum
Decision 93/659/EC of 25 November 1993 on the clearance                         admissible concentrations for several parameters in the
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of                    Directive are exceeded, the United Kingdom has failed to
the expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural Guid-                     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —
ance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section (OJ
1993 L 301, p. 13) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: P. Jann, President of
of P.J.G Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch,                     the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen,                  J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl Principal                    D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
April 1999 in which it:                                                    a judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it:


title: Case T-353/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ALARIS — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS)
   (Case T-353/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ALARIS - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aleris Holding AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar and K. Westerberg, lawyers)

      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: Carefusion 303, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2012 (Case R 334/2011-5) relating to revocation proceedings between Aleris Holding AB and Carefusion 303, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 May 2002 (Case R 334/2011-5) in so far as it rejects the application for revocation of the trade mark ALARIS in respect of the goods falling within Class 10 other than infusion systems, syringe pumps, volumetric pumps, controllers, thermometers and disposable thermometers;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.