title: Case T-434/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)
   (Case T-434/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
   2014/C 52/67
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Fissl, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 1692/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Margarete Steiff GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2004 in Case T-317/01: M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for verbal mark ‘M+M EUROdATA’ — Earlier verbal mark EURODATA TV — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 June 2004
   in Case T-317/01: M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for verbal mark ‘M+M EUROdATA’ - Earlier verbal mark EURODATA TV - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 239/32)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-317/01: M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and U. Pfleghar), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Mediametrie SA, established in Paris (France), represented originally by D. Dupuis-Latour and then by S. Szilvasi, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 October 2001 in Case R 698/2000-1 concerning opposition proceedings between Mediametrie SA and M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 October 2001 in Case R 698/2000-1, save in so far as it referred the case back to the Opposition Division for the latter to act on the application for a trade mark in respect of the goods and services covered by that application and falling within Classes 9, 16 and 42;

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the applicant's costs;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-299/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/77/EC — Markets for electronic communications networks and services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-299/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/77/EC - Markets for electronic communications networks and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 143/17)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-299/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and K. Mojzesowicz) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 14 July 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J. Malenovský, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               (1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               (2)

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11. 09. 2004.


title: Case C-645/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cajas Rurales Unidas, Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito v Evaristo Méndez Sena, Edelmira Pérez Vicente, Daniel Méndez Sena, Victoriana Pérez Bicéntez

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/10

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cajas Rurales Unidas, Sociedad Cooperativa de Crédito v Evaristo Méndez Sena, Edelmira Pérez Vicente, Daniel Méndez Sena, Victoriana Pérez Bicéntez
   (Case C-645/13) (1)

   (2015/C 056/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case C-433/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Taxable amount — Tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State based on their value and their average consumption — ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’ )

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-433/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Taxable amount - Tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State based on their value and their average consumption - ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’)
   2011/C 55/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl and C. Pesendorfer, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 78 and 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale of a motor vehicle — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a tax on the delivery of vehicles not yet registered in the Member State concerned on the basis of their value and their average consumption (‘Normverbrauschasbgage’)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by including the standard consumption tax (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) in the taxable amount of value added tax levied in Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

               2.

               Dismisses the action for the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Commission and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24 of 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-396/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanța — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against Ciprian Vasile Radu (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution — Grounds for refusing execution)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanța — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against Ciprian Vasile Radu
   (Case C-396/11) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution - Grounds for refusing execution)
   2013/C 86/07
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curte de Apel Constanța

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ciprian Vasile Radu

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Constanța — Interpretation of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), and of Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 6, 48 and 52 thereof — European arrest warrant issued for prosecution purposes — Possibility for the Member State responsible for executing the warrant to refuse the request for surrender of the person sought on grounds of failure to comply with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and also because the Member State which issued the warrant has failed, in whole or in part, to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA into national law

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authorities cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution on the ground that the requested person was not heard in the issuing Member State before that arrest warrant was issued.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-305/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Unicid v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/12

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Unicid v Commission
   (Case T-305/09)
   2009/C 244/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union nationale interprofessionnelle cidricole (Unicid) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008, (1) by which the Commission found that the framework for actions liable to be carried out by French inter-branch organisations, consisting in aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing for quality products, for research and development and marketing for primary producers and undertakings engaged in processing and marketing agricultural products, financed through voluntary levies made compulsory by inter-ministerial decree, to be collected from the members of those inter-branch organisations, were a measure constituting State aid compatible with the common market.
   The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission and Case T-302/09 CNIPT v Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.


title: Case C-136/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Sociedade Metropolitana de Desenvolvimento SA v Banco Santander Totta SA

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Sociedade Metropolitana de Desenvolvimento SA v Banco Santander Totta SA
   (Case C-136/16)
   (2016/C 165/13)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sociedade Metropolitana de Desenvolvimento SA

      Respondent: Banco Santander Totta SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a dispute between two national undertakings of a Member State concerning agreements, does the fact that such agreements contain clauses conferring jurisdiction to another Member State constitute a sufficient international element to give rise to the application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) and Regulation No 1215/2012 (2) to determine international jurisdiction, or must there be other international elements?

               2.

               May application of the jurisdiction agreement be waived where the choice of the courts of a Member State other than that of the nationality of the parties causes serious inconvenience for one of those parties and the other party has no good reason to justify such choice?
               In the event that it is held that other international elements are necessary in addition to the jurisdiction agreement:

               3.

               Do the swap agreements concluded between [Sociedade Metropolitana de Desenvolvimento, S.A.] (‘SMD’) and Banco Santander Totta have sufficient international elements to give rise to the application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 and Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 in order to determine which courts have international jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to them where:

                           (a)

                           Those entities are nationals of a Member State, Portugal, that concluded two swap agreements in Portugal consisting of an ISDA Master Agreement and two confirmations, negotiated by the Autonomous Region of Madeira on behalf of SMD;

                           (b)

                           In that negotiation, the Autonomous Region of Madeira, assisted by Banco BPI, S.A., and by a law firm, invited more than one international bank to submit proposals, one of those invited banks being JP Morgan;

                           (c)

                           Banco Santander Totta is wholly owned by Banco Santander, with domicile in Spain;

                           (d)

                           Banco Santander Totta acted in its capacity as an international bank with subsidiaries in various Member States and under the single brand Santander;

                           (e)

                           Banco Santander Totta was considered in the ISDA Master Agreement as a Multibranch Party, able to make and receive payments in any transaction through its subsidiaries in London or Luxemburg;

                           (f)

                           Under the terms of the ISDA Master Agreement concluded, the parties may, in certain cases, transfer their rights and obligations to other representative offices or subsidiaries;

                           (g)

                           The parties to the swap agreements specified that English law was applicable and concluded jurisdiction agreements that confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts;

                           (h)

                           The agreements were drafted in English and the terminology and concepts used are Anglo-Saxon;

                           (i)

                           The swap agreements were concluded with the objective of covering the risk of variation in the interest rates of two financing agreements, both drafted in English and concluded with foreign entities (one based in the Netherlands and the other in Italy), and in one of the financing agreements it is provided that borrowers’ payments must be made to the HSBC Bank Plc account in London, on dates defined by reference to the London time zone and subject to English law and the English courts;

                           (j)

                           Banco Santander Totta acted as an intermediary of the international market, having concluded hedging agreements in the context of the international market?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2003 in Case T-254/99: Maja Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community aid — Sale of business — Implementation of project — Procedure for discontinuance of aid — Action for annulment)

text:
C 112/24              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                             G. Arendt, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                        (2003/C 112/42)                                   C. Cattabriga and A. Dal Ferro) — application for the
                                                                          annulment of Commission decision C(1999) 2183 of 5 August
                                                                          1999, first, discontinuing the financial aid granted to the
At its plenary meeting on 2 April 2003, the Court of First                applicant by Commission decision C(91) 654/87 of 29 April
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 10 of the Rules of                  1991 in the framework of project IT/0166/91/01, entitled
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of the               ‘Modernisation of an aquaculture production unit at Contarina
period ending on 30 September 2003, to assign Judge Martins               (Veneto)’ and for an order directing the applicant to repay to
Ribeiro to the First Chamber, to the First Chamber, Extended              the Commission ITL 420 810 718 (EUR 217 330,59) — the
Composition, and to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-                    Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
sition.                                                                   R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                          Judges; Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 2003, in which
Consequently, the composition of the Chambers as decided on
                                                                          it:
4 July 2002 (OJ C 202 of 24 August 2002, p. 19) is modified
as follows:
                                                                          1.     Dismisses the application;
First Chamber                                                             2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the
                                                                                proceedings for interim measures.
B. Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), H. Legal and M.E.
Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
First Chamber, Extended Composition
B. Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), J. Azizi, M. Jaeger,
H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
R. García-Valdecasas (President of the Chamber), P. Lindh,                                          of 4 March 2003
J.D. Cooke, H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges.
                                                                          in Case T-319/99: Federación Nacional de Empresas de
                                                                          Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental
                                                                           (FENIN) v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Public
                                                                          health service — Late payment of invoices — Complaint
                       of 12 March 2003                                         submitted by suppliers — Definition of undertaking)
in Case T-254/99: Maja Srl v Commission of the European
                                                                                (2003/C 112/44)
                        Communities (1)
(Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community aid — Sale                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
of business — Implementation of project — Procedure for
        discontinuance of aid — Action for annulment)
                        (2003/C 112/43)                                   In Case T-319/99, Federación Nacional de Empresas de
                                                                          Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN),
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                         established in Madrid (Spain), represented by R. García-
                                                                          Gallardo Gil-Fournier, G. Pérez Olmo and D. Domínguez
                                                                          Pérez, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities
In Case T-254/99: Maja Srl, formerly Ca’Pasta Srl, established            (Agents: W. Wils, É. Gippini-Fournier and J. Rivas Andrés):
in Padua (Italy), represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni and              Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of


title: Case T-454/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Luna v OHIM — Asteris (Al bustan) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark Al bustan — Earlier national figurative mark ALBUSTAN — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Luna v OHIM — Asteris (Al bustan)
   (Case T-454/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark Al bustan - Earlier national figurative mark ALBUSTAN - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 156/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Luna International Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Asteris Industrial and Commercial Company SA (Athens, Greece)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2011 (Case R 1358/2008-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Asteris Industrial and Commercial Company SA and Luna International Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Luna International Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.


title: Case T-282/04: Action brought on 9 July 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/24

         Action brought on 9 July 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-282/04)
   (2004/C 251/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by Gianni De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2004) 1706 final of 24 April 2004‘which excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in respect of the Guarantee section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)’ in part in so far as it

               —

               makes a specific adjustment of EUR 19 058 682 for Rural Development — Measure (b) ‘Settlement of Young Farmers’ of the Rural Development Programme for the Region of Tuscany

               —

               makes a flat-rate adjustment of 2 % of the sum of EUR 2 758 501 relating to the supply of food aid for the needy

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The expenditure excluded from Community financing by the contested decision, as regards the applicant, relates to the ‘Settlement of Young Farmers’ measure provided for in the document on the planning of rural development in the Region of Tuscany, approved by Decision C(2000) 2510 of 7 September 2000, and the flat-rate adjustment of 2 % applied to the supply of food aid for the needy which, according to the Commission, does not offer a system of checks with sufficient safeguards.
   In support of its claim, the applicant pleads:

               —

               As regards the ‘Settlement of Young Farmers’ measure, infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (1), of Articles 35 and 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1750/99 (2), of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (3), as well as of the principles concerning financial adjustments.

               —

               As regards the supply of food aid for the needy, the infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 729/70, already cited.

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special Edition, Series II Chapter 1970(I), p. 218).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 214 of 13.8.1999, p. 31).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ L 312 of 23.12.1995, p. 1).


title: Case T-421/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM — Sotelo Ares (ROSALIA DE CASTRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO — Earlier national word mark ROSALIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana v OHIM — Sotelo Ares (ROSALIA DE CASTRO)
   (Case T-421/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO - Earlier national word mark ROSALIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 340/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega (Meaño, Spain) (represented by: E. Sánchez-Quiñones González, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: María Constantina Sotelo Ares (Cambados, Spain) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-403/15: Action brought on 22 July 2015 — JYSK v Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/58

         Action brought on 22 July 2015 — JYSK v Commission
   (Case T-403/15)
   (2015/C 311/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JYSK sp. z o.o. (Radomsko, Poland) (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision C(2015) 3228 final of 11 May 2015 regarding a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘European Shared Service Centre — Intelligent Logistics Systems’, forming part of the operational program ‘Innovative Economy’ for assistance from the ERDF under the Convergence objective in Poland.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging JYSK met the set requirements by the Polish Government and the purposes of both the Operational Program Innovative Economy 2007-2013 (OP IE) and of EU law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the project is in line with the OP IE and with the EU law.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that in its decision, the Commission does not question that the set criteria in Submeasure 4.5.2. (annex 2) are in line with the OP IE and EU law. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Commission does not question the fact that the project is in line with the set criteria and/or that JYSK was entitled to the score of 60,5 points.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the essence of this lawsuit.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that this lawsuit — in reality — got nothing to do with JYSK — as all parties — even the Commission — agree to the fact that JYSK did in fact meet the set criteria. According to the applicant, this lawsuit is therefore solely a dispute of lawfulness between the Polish administration on the one side and the Commission on the opposite side. That should not make JYSK become a victim.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission representative confirmed that the Polish administration is in line with EU law and with the OP IE.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, it is clear that the Commission agreed to all the set requirements and that it accepted the OP IE and the concrete implementation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringes the division of competences between the Commission and the Polish administration and infringes the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Commission is not entitled to decline national support on grounds that are for the Polish administration to decide — because of the latters` close experience with the area. According to the applicant, the Commission is furthermore not entitled to decline on grounds that were known to it at the time of JYSK application. The ‘Scoreboard’ (Submeasure 4.5.2.) allegedly expresses exactly the goals and purposes in the OP IE and both were known to the Commission representative in the Monitoring Committee at the time of the JYSK application. The correct understanding/interpretation of the OP IE, so the applicant claims, shall take into account the specific knowledge of the Polish administration concerning work places and skills of workers in Radomsko, and it is not for the Commission to override in all details the assessment of the Polish administration when implementing the program, nor is it correct to consider any intention or ‘goal’ of the OP IE to be decisive as the Commission does. According to the applicant, the correct understanding of the OP IE and EU law shall be based upon the fact that some of the provisions are of greater importance than others — illustrated in the scoreboard (Submeasure 4.5.2.).

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging the arguments of the Commission.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that none of the three main arguments were in force and/or decisive in the sense the Commission claims and within the understanding that the Commission refers to at the time of JYSK application (July 2008). According to the applicant, they can therefore not be relevant in this case and, to the extent the court finds them relevant, they were not decisive.


title: Case C-343/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/29

         Action brought on 7 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-343/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/47
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to ensure that

                           —

                           urban waste water from the agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 of Valle de Güimar, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Valle de la Orotava, Arenys de Mar, Alcossebre and Cariño is collected in conformity with Article 3 of Directive 91/271/EEC, (1) and

                           —

                           urban waste water from the agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 of Arroyo de la Miel, Arroyo de la Víbora, Estepota (San Pedro de Alcántara), Alhaurín el Grande, Coín, Barbate, Chipiona, Isla Cristina, Matalascañas, Nerja, Tarifa, Torrox Costa, Vejer de la Frontera, Gijón-Este, Llanes, Valles de Güimar, Noreste (Valle Guerra), Los Llanos de Aridane, Arenys de Mar, Pineda de Mar, Ceuta, Alcossebre, Benicarló, Elx (Arenales), Peñíscola, Teulada Moraira (Rada Moraira), Vinaròs, A Coruña, Cariño, Tui, Vigo, Aguiño-Carreira-Ribeira, Baiona, Noia, Santiago, Viveiro and Irán (Hondarribia) is treated in conformity with Article 4(1), (3) and, where applicable, (4) of the directive,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the cited provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In accordance with Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 91/271/EEC, agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 had to be provided with collecting systems and subjected to secondary treatment or an equivalent for urban waste water by 31 December 2000 at the latest.
   In accordance with Article 3(2) of the directive, the collecting systems for urban waste water have to satisfy the requirements of Annex I (A).
   As regards the obligations to treat urban waste water, Article 4(1) of the directive imposes on the Member States the obligation to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems is subjected to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment.
   Pursuant to Article 4(3) of the directive, discharges from treatment plants are to satisfy the relevant requirements of Annex I (B). For its part, Annex I (B) referred to the requirements set out in table I of that annex. Finally, the methods for monitoring set out in Annex I (D) make it possible to verify whether discharges from urban waste water treatment plants satisfy the requirements laid down in Annex I (B).
   In respect of the 38 agglomerations concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to satisfy the requirements laid down in the directive.

      (1)  Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).


title: Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 8 June 1999

text:
3.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 188/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of                     — Fourth Chamber
                             justice
                                                                           Mr Kapteyn, President of the Chamber
                        (1999/C 188/01)
Following his appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice of              Mr Murray and Mr Ragnemalm, Judges
the European Communities by Decision of the Representatives
of the Governments of the Member States of 26 May 1999 (1)
for the period from 25 May 1999 to 6 October 2003,                     — Sixth Chamber
Mr Vassilios Skouris took the oath before the Court on 7 June
1999.                                                                      Mr Kapteyn, President of the Chamber
(1) OJ 1999 L 140, p. 25.                                                  Mr Hirsch, Mr Mancini, Mr Murray, Mr Ragnemalm,
                                                                           Mr Schintgen and Mr Skouris, Judges
                                                                       2.    The Court has consequently decided, first, to amend
                                                                       point 2 of the decision adopted at its meeting on 14 July
Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 8 June                1998 (1), as follows:
                              1999
                        (1999/C 188/02)                                    ‘2. For each case assigned to them, the First and Second
                                                                           Chambers (to each of which four judges are attached) shall
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted                   be composed of the President of the Chamber, the
the following decisions at its meeting on 8 June 1999:                     Judge-Rapporteur and a third judge designated in accord-
                                                                           ance with a list of the judges in order of seniority. At each
                                                                           general meeting the starting-point on that list is to be
Attachment of Judge V. Skouris                                             moved down one name.’
The Court has decided that Judge V. Skouris is to be attached
to the Second and Sixth Chambers.
                                                                       3.    Second, as regards the period from 8 June 1999 to
                                                                       6 October 1999, the lists on the basis of which the composition
Composition of the Second, Fourth and
                                                                       of the Second and Sixth Chambers is determined, as set out in
Sixth Chambers
                                                                       point 4 of the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on
                                                                       14 July 1998, are amended as follows:
1.    The composition of the Second, Fourth and Sixth
Chambers for the period from 8 June to 6 October 1999 has
been determined as follows:                                            — Second Chamber
— Second Chamber
                                                                           President: Mr Hirsch
    Mr Hirsch, President of the Chamber
    Mr Mancini, Mr Schintgen and Mr Skouris, Judges                        Judge Mancini, Judge Schintgen and Judge Skouris
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/2                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3.7.1999
— Sixth Chamber                                                               — shares a common origin with that product in that it has been
                                                                                manufactured by the same company or by an associated
    President: Mr Kapteyn                                                         undertaking or under licence according to the same formu-
                                                                                lation,
    Judge Mancini, Judge Hirsch, Judge Schintgen, Judge Skour-
    is, Judge Murray and Judge Ragnemalm.                                     — was manufactured using the same active ingredient, and
                                                                              — also has the same effect with due regard to differences which
                                                                                may exist in conditions relating to agriculture, plant health
(1) OJ C 299 of 26 September 1998, p. 1.                                          and environment, and in particular climatic conditions,
                                                                                relevant to the use of the product,
                                                                              that product must be able to benefit from the marketing
                                                                              authorisation already granted in the Member State of import-
                                                                              ation, unless that is precluded by considerations concerning the
                                                                              protection of human and animal health and of the environment.
                                                                         2. The competent authority of one Member State may grant
                                                                              marketing authorisation for a plant protection product importet
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         from a third country which is not already covered by marketing
                                                                              authorisation granted in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                              Directive 91/414 in another Member State, only under the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                      conditions laid down by that directive.
                        of 11 March 1999                                 (1) JO No C 145 of 18.5.1996.
in Case C-100/96 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division]: The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture,
                      Fisheries and Food (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Marketing authorisation — Plant protection product
imported from an EEA State or a third country — Identical
to a plant protection product already authorised by the                                           of 16 March 1999
Member State of importation — Assessment of identical
        nature — Member States’ power of assessment)                     in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96:
                                                                         Kingdom of Denmark (C-289/96), Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany (Case C- 293/96) and French Republic (C-
                         (1999/C 188/03)                                  299/96) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 — Commission Regu-
                   (Language of the case: English)                       lation (EC) No 1107/96 — Registration of geographical
                                                                                indications and designations of origin — ‘Feta’)
In Case C-100/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                       (1999/C 188/04)
the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice (England &
Wales) Queen’s Bench Division (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         (Language of the case: Danish, German and French)
court between The Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on                                  in the European Court Reports)
the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber;                   In Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96: Kingdom
G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    of Denmark (C-289/96) (Agent: P. Biering), Federal Republic
R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louter-             of Germany (C-293/96) (Agents: E. Röder and A. Dittrich) and
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              French Republic (C-299/96) (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and
given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it has ruled:                G. Mignot) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         [Agents: (C-289/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. Støvlbæk,
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State finds that a          (C-293/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker, (C-299/96)
    plant protection product imported from an EEA State in which         J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid], supported by Hellenic
    it is already covered by marketing authorisation granted in          Republic [Agents: D. Papageorgopoulos (C-293/96), I. Chalkias
    accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991         (C-289/96 and C-299/96) and I. Galani-Maragkoudaki
    concerning the placing of plant protection products on the           (C-289/96), C- 293/96 and C-299/96] — application for
    market, if not identical in all respects to a product already        annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
    authorised within the Member State of importation, at least          12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications


title: Action brought on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-298/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/7
Action brought on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                           ( Case C-298/97 )                            — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                             period all the provisions necessary to comply fully and
                             ( 97/C 318/11 )                                 properly with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
                                                                             24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
                                                                             regulations and administrative provisions of the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                           Member States regarding the protection of animals
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      used for experimental and other scientific purposes (')
on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of the European                          and in particular Articles 19 ( 5 ) and 6 ( 1 ) of the
Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la                          Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
Torre, acting as Agent, with an address . for service in                     its obligations pursuant to the third paragraph of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of                      Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 25 ( 1 ) of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 .                                     Directive 86/609/EEC,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
                                                                             the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
                                                                             Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
— declare that, by failing to draw up or communicate to                      under those provisions,
     the Commission, within the period prescribed therefor,
     the programmes provided for ip Article 6 of Council                — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries
     and accumulators containing certain dangerous
     substances ('), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     fulfil its obligations thereunder,
                                                                        Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                        a Directive is to be binding, as to the result to be
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                         achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
                                                                        addressed. The Commission finds that, despite the expiry
                                                                        of the time limits laid down in Article 25 of Directive 86/
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     609/EEC on 24 November 1989, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                        has still not adopted all the implementing provisions into
                                                                        its legal system .
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article
5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the                  H OJ L 358 , 18 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 .
measures necessary to transpose Directives addressed to
them into their domestic law before the expiry of the
period prescribed for doing so . That period expired on
17 September 1992 without Spain having communicated
the programmes which should have been drawn up for an
initial period of four years as from March 1993 .                       Appeal brought on 20 August 1997 by Tierce Ladbroke
                                                                        SA against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997 by the
C ) OJ L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .                                  Second Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court
                                                                        of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        Case T-504/93 between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported
                                                                        by the Societe d'encouragement et des steeple-chases de
                                                                                France and others
                                                                                ( Case C-300/97 P)
Action brought on 19 August 1997 by the Commission                                                ( 97/C 318/13 )
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                  Republic
                           ( Case C-299/97)                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997
                                                                        by the Second Chamber ( extended composition ) of the
                             ( 97/C 318/12 )                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        Case T-504/93 between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported by
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   the Societe d'encouragement et des steeple-chases de
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 France and others, was brought before the Court of
on 19 August 1997 by the Commission of the European                     Justice of the European Communities on 20 August 1997
Communities, represented by Lena Strom and Francisco                    by Tierce Ladbroke SA, represented by Christopher Vajda,
de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,                QC, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an address for
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy &
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                      Err, 60, avenue Gaston Diderich .


title: Case C-465/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v F. Wieland, H. Rothwangl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 18 and 45 TFEU — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 3 and 94 — Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 — Article 2(1) and (2) — Old-age and survivor’s insurance — Former seafarers who are nationals of a third country which became a Member State of the European Union in 1995 — Excluded from entitlement to old-age benefit)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v F. Wieland, H. Rothwangl
   (Case C-465/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 18 and 45 TFEU - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 3 and 94 - Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 - Article 2(1) and (2) - Old-age and survivor’s insurance - Former seafarers who are nationals of a third country which became a Member State of the European Union in 1995 - Excluded from entitlement to old-age benefit))
   (2017/C 006/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

      Respondents: F. Wieland, H. Rothwangl

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 94(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that does not take into account, when determining rights to old-age pension, an insurance period claimed to have been completed under its own legislation by a foreign worker when the State of which that worker is a national acceded to the European Union after the completion of that period;

               2.

               Articles 18 and 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a seafarer who, over a specified period, was part of the crew of a vessel which had its home port in the territory of that Member State and who resided aboard that vessel, is excluded from benefiting from old-age insurance in respect of that period on the ground that he was not a national of a Member State during that period;

               3.

               Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that a period of employment — completed pursuant to the legislation of that Member State by an employed worker who was not a national of a Member State during that period but who, when he requests the payment of an old-age pension, falls within the scope of Article 1 of that regulation — is not to be taken into consideration by that Member State for the determination of that worker’s pension rights.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-417/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
15.11.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/39
Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                     the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                            lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-416/03)
                             (Case-414/03)
                           (2003/C 275/59)                                                         (2003/C 275/60)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-               An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 Octo-
ties on 2 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, a member of the
                                                                           represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
—     declare that by allowing a contract for the disposal of                    Directive 2001/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
      waste entered into by the local authority for Friesland to                 of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
      be awarded without the provisions relating to giving                       into the environment of genetically modified organisms
      notice provided for in Article 8 of Directive 92/50 (1) in                 and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, or in any
      conjunction with Titles III to VI of that Directive being                  event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
      complied with, the Federal Republic of Germany has                         Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                     that directive;
—     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the defendant admitted to the alleged infringement
and claimed that it intended to award the contract for the
disposal of waste in a manner that complies with EU public                 The period within which the directive had to be implemented
procurement law in future, it took no steps to terminate the               in the national legal order expired on 17 October 2002.
current contract which remains in force up to 13 December
2004.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001, p. 1.
Nor does it even claim that it is possible for the contract to be
terminated under German law. It merely points to the fact that
to terminate the contract early could lead to claims for
damages. However, the effectiveness of Community public
procurement law is greatly enhanced precisely where con-
tracting authorities do in appropriate cases have to contend
with the possibility of paying out damages.
                                                                           Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Nor can the obligation to bring infringements of Community                                              Belgium
public procurement law to an end by terminating contracts
already entered into be called in question by Article 2(6) of
Directive 89/665 (2) which relates to reviews of possible                                          (Case C-417/03)
infringements of Community public procurement law. An
infringement of the Treaty can be regarded as having been                                          (2003/C 275/61)
brought to an end only where the Member State has acknowl-
edged the wrongfulness of the conduct and the infringement
has also been fully brought to an end.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
(1) OJ L 209, p. 1.                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(2) OJ L 395, p. 33.                                                       on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/40                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                    15.11.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               Pleas in law and main arguments
      comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the
      deliberate release into the environment of genetically               The time limit for transposing the directive expired on
      modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/               17 October 2002.
      220/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;               (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
The period for transposition of the directive expired on
17 October 2002.
                                                                                (Case C-419/03)
(1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/63)
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 October
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                            of Luxembourg
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-418/03)
                                                                           1.    Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 275/62)                                       Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                                                                                into the environment of genetically modified organisms
                                                                                and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1) and, in
                                                                                any event, by not communicating them to the Com-
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                              mission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     obligations under that directive;
ties on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               The time limit for transposing the directive expired on
      Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           17 October 2002.
      the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
      into the environment of genetically modified organisms
      and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1) and, in
                                                                           (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
      any event, by not communicating them to the Com-
      mission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;


title: Case T-196/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ‘la nana’  — Earlier national word mark NANA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Stal-Florez Botero (la nana)
   (Case T-196/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ‘la nana’ - Earlier national word mark NANA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 292/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero (Maarssen, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2013 (Case R 300/2012-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Lina M. Stal-Florez Botero.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-122/08: Action brought on 19 mars 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/18

         Action brought on 19 mars 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-122/08)
   (2008/C 116/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Mr M. Wilderspin, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-287/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-385/06: Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/10

         Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-385/06: Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-287/11 P)
   2011/C 238/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, V. Bottka, R. Sauer, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment under Appeal;

               —

               dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety;

               —

               require the tree applicants to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission bases its Appeal on the following three grounds of appeal:

               In the first ground of appeal it is submitted that the General Court infringed various rules on the burden of proof and procedural rules on evidence, distorted certain pieces of evidence and did not provide reasons for its factual assessment. Although the General Court recalls the case law on the need to consider the overall body of evidence, the subsequent assessment reveals a very fragmentary approach by which evidence is viewed in isolation and dismissed on a piece-by-piece basis. This affects the analysis of individual contacts, which the Decision considers as manifestations of the Aalberts undertakings' participation in the on-going infringement. Evidence on the participation of the subsidiary companies Simplex and Aquatis in the continuous infringement are assessed by the General Court in isolation, although they belonged to one and the same undertaking (Aalberts). In addition, and with regard to these contacts, the General Court distorts certain key pieces of evidence or at least does not provide sufficient reasons for its conclusions as regards the probative value of certain pieces of evidence. The second ground of appeal is an alternative plea, in that even if its factual findings were to be upheld, the General Court was wrong to annul the decision in full, insofar as it only found a partial mistake in the Decision. The Judgment under Appeal is affected by at least two errors of law:

                           —

                                 First
                              , the General Court annulled the Commission's Decision on the ground that Aquatis
                           had a different degree of awareness of the cartel, compared to the other participants of the FNAS meetings in France. However, in line with established case law, the differing degree of awareness by a cartel participant should not lead to the total annulment of the single and continuous infringement but it could, at most, lead to a partial annulment of the finding of an infringement, and probably a reduction of the fine.

                           —

                                 Second
                              , by completely annulling the Decision for Aalberts and its two subsidiaries in a
                           case where a partial annulment would have been the most appropriate solution in line with the case law, the General Court exceeded its powers

               Finally, the third ground of appeal is also in the alternative, should the Court of Justice dismiss the first and second ground of appeal, as it concerns the calculation of the fine for Simplex and Aquatis in the first period in the event the finding of an infringement in the second period would be annulled in full. The Commission submits that the annulment of Article 2(b)(2) of the Decision lacks motivation and that, if the General Court relied on the so-called 10 % cap under Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), it ruled ultra petita and violated the principle of the contradictory procedure and thus the right to a fair hearing as this was not discussed during the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty
   OJ L 1, p. 1


title: Case C-498/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2012 — Antonella Pedone v Maria Adele Corrao

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2012 — Antonella Pedone v Maria Adele Corrao
   (Case C-498/12)
   2013/C 26/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Antonella Pedone

      Defendant: Maria Adele Corrao

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 130 of Presidential Decree No 115 of 30 May 2002 on legal aid in Italian law — insofar as it stipulates that amounts payable to the defending council, the auxiliary to the judge and the court legal assessor are to be reduced by half — comply with Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which stipulates that legal aid is to be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice?

               2.

               Does Article 130 of Presidential Decree No 115 of 30 May 2002 on legal aid in Italian law — insofar as it stipulates that amounts payable to the defending counsel, the auxiliary to the judge and the court legal assessor are to be reduced by half — comply with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as transposed into Community law by Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by Article 6 [TFEU]?


title: Case C-7/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, other party: T. Kahveci

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/37

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, other party: T. Kahveci
   (Case C-7/10)
   2010/C 63/58
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Other party: T. Kahveci

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State cannot invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality?

               2.

               In answering the first question is the time at which the Turkish worker concerned acquired the nationality of the host Member State of relevance?


title: Case T-219/11: Action brought on 15 April 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/16

         Action brought on 15 April 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)
   (Case T-219/11)
   2011/C 194/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               annul the resolution of the Second Board of Appeal of 14 February 2011 in Case R 0556/2010-2, in relation to the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘photographs, adhesives (glues) for stationery or household purposes, paint brushes, typewriters and office requisites (except furniture), instructional and teaching material (except apparatus), plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes), printers’ type, printing blocks’.

               —

               refuse Community trade mark application No 5 676 721‘AGIPA’ in respect of all the goods granted in Class 16;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: APLI-AGIPA S.A.S.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AGIPA’ (registration application No 5 676 721) for goods in Class 16.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AGIPA’ (No 2 216 879) and Spanish figurative mark that contains the word element ‘a — agipa’ (No 1 269 511), both for goods in Class 16.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-91/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.6.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 135/9
      is not possible is the introduction, by publication, of                  limits which do not exist either for access by French
      amendments of the text approved by the legislature since                 vessels to Spanish coastal waters or for access by vessels
      to do so presupposes a usurpation of its powers.                         of the remaining Member States to the coastal waters of
                                                                               other Member States.
( 1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.                                       —      Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain: following
( 2) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 49.                                              the abolition of limits on access by Spanish vessels to
                                                                               waters under French jurisdiction outside the 12-mile zone
                                                                               upon expiry of the transitional period provided for in the
                                                                               Act of Accession, there is no justification for maintaining
                                                                               the 12-mile derogations. There are no specific measures
                                                                               for access to pelagic species in that zone that might
                                                                               require special management and, furthermore, catches of
                                                                               those pelagic species are taken by the same type of vessels
                                                                               (Cerco).
                                                                               In short, the maintenance of a restrictive and discriminat-
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Kingdom of                           ory arrangement for access by Spanish vessels to the
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                          waters of the French 12-mile zone in the Atlantic
                                                                               beyond the transitional period provided for in the Act of
                                                                               Accession, and a derogation from equivalent rules on
                         (Case C-91/03)                                        access to French waters in the Atlantic outside the
                                                                               12 miles in issue, are contrary to the restrictive and
                                                                               limited nature required of any exception to a general rule
                        (2003/C 135/13)                                        of the Treaty, a fortiori when what is being limited is a
                                                                               principle as essential as the principle of non-discrimi-
                                                                               nation on ground of nationality and, infringes the very
                                                                               essence of the provisions of an Act of Accession.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            (1 ) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
ties on 28 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented           (2 ) Council Regulation of 20 December 1992 establishing a Com-
by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for                  munity system for fisheries and aquaculture, OJ L 389,
service in Luxembourg.                                                       31.12.1992, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul point 6 of Annex I to Council Regulation 2371/
      2002 ( 1) of 20 December 2002 on the conversation and
      sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the
      Common Fisheries Policy.
—     order the Council to pay the costs.                               Action brought on 4 March 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                              Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-100/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 135/14)
—     Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination:
      during the negotiations for Regulation 2371/2002, Spain
      sought amendment of point 6 of Annex I in order to
      remove the restriction applying to its vessels in the 6 to
      12 mile zone of the Atlantic waters off France deriving
      from the Act of Accession and to balance the conditions           An action against the Council of the European Union was
      of access to that zone with those enjoyed by French               brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      vessels in Spanish waters. However, the Council decided           ties on 4 March 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
      to leave point 6 of Annex I unaltered by comparison with          by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
      that recognised in Regulation 3760/92 (2) and thus to set         service in Luxembourg.