title: Case F-1/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/54

         Action brought on 6 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-1/14)
   2014/C 52/108
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage because of her level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested to by a diploma relevant to the post, or equivalent training/an equivalent professional qualification relevant to the post.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the selection board of 3 October 2013;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 in respect of non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Rule on the costs, expenses and fees and, having regard to the vexatory nature of the defendant’s decision to refuse to admit the applicant, order the Commission to pay them.


title: Case C-344/02: Action brought on 26 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 261/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.10.2002
Action brought on 26 September 2002 by the Com-                          their transposition. That time-limit expired without the French
mission of the European Communities against the French                   Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
                            Republic                                     in order to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                         Commission’s application.
                        (Case C-343/02)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2001 L 127, p. 38.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ 2001 L 127, p. 42.
                        (2002/C 261/19)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             Action brought on 26 September 2002 by the Com-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Septem-               mission of the European Communities against the French
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                              Republic
represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                                            (Case C-344/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 261/20)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Septem-
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or              ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      administrative provisions necessary to comply:                     represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.
      —     Commission Directive 2001/32/EC of 8 May 2001
            recognising protected zones exposed to particular            The applicant claims that the Court should:
            plant health risks in the Community and repealing
            Directive 92/76/EEC (1),                                     —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
      —     Commission Directive 2001/33/EC of 8 May 2001                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
            amending certain annexes to Council Directive                      Directive 2000/16/EC of the European Parliament and
            2000/29/EC on protective measures against the                      the Council of 10 April 2000 amending Council Directive
            introduction into the Community of organisms                       79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs
            harmful to plants or plant products and against their              and Council Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed
            spread within the Community (2), and                               materials (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under that directive; and
      in any event, by failing to communicate them to the                —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under those two directives;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                         directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                         each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                         their transposition. That time-limit expired on 3 May 2001
                                                                         without the French Republic having brought into force the
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        referred to in the Commission’s application.
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          (1 ) OJ 2000 L 105, p. 36.


title: Case T-384/16: Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/30

         Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading/Council
   (Case T-384/16)
   (2016/C 326/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: P. Saini, QC, R. Mehta, Barrister, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125),

               —

               annul, insofar as it applies to the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 30), and

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the ground for inclusion in the annex to the challenged decision and regulation as specified by Article 28(1) of Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (the ‘original decision’) and by Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (the ‘original regulation’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of rights of defence and right to effective judicial protection.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons, in both the challenged decision and the challenged regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to property and reputation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-254/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014  — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/31

         Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
   (Case T-254/14)
   2014/C 194/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd. (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Hirschel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in case R 2035/2012-1 and allow the applicant’s trade mark applied for;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘NEW MAX’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06  474

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘MAX’, for services in Class 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and complete rejection of the trade mark applied for

      Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue


title: Case F-76/15: Action brought on 15 May 2015 — ZZ v Council

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/51

         Action brought on 15 May 2015 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-76/15)
   (2015/C 245/64)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Brussels Settlements Office rejecting the application for extension of the recognition of the illness suffered by the applicant’s son as a serious illness and for the medical expenses connected therewith to be reimbursed at 100 %.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Brussels Settlements Office of 8 April 2014 rejecting the application for extension of the recognition of the illness suffered by the applicant’s son as a serious illness and for the medical expenses connected therewith to be reimbursed at 100 %;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-387/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy), lodged on 28 June 2017 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy), lodged on 28 June 2017 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA
   (Case C-387/17)
   (2017/C 338/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Defendant: Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA

      Questions referred

   ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union is asked the following questions (in the circumstances of the main proceedings, involving an action for damages against the State as legislator, alleging that, during the period 1976 to 1980, and pursuant to the law of that Member State (Law No 684/197), it granted to a shipping company subsidies constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 92(1) and now Article 107(1) TFEU) which were not notified or authorised pursuant to Article 88 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93 and now Article 108 TFEU), in the context of a market that was not liberalised at that time (maritime cabotage):

               (a)

               For the purposes of classifying that aid (as “existing” and, therefore, not “new” aid), is Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) according to which “(v) aid which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State. Where certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by Community law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation”, applicable and, if so, under what conditions; or is the principle (formally different in scope from that of the abovementioned substantive law provision) established by the General Court in its judgment of 15 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/9 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 (Alzetta and Others v Commission, paragraph 143), and confirmed, by the ruling, of interest in the present case, of the Court of Justice in Case C-298/00 P (paragraphs 66 to 69) — according to which “… a system of aid established in a market that was initially closed to competition must, when that market is liberalised, be regarded as an existing aid system, since at the time of its establishment it did not come within the scope of Article 92(1) of the Treaty [subsequently Article 87(1)], which, having regard to the requirements set out in that provision regarding effect on trade between Member States and repercussions on competition, applies only to sectors open to competition” — applicable and, if so, under what conditions?

               (b)

               For the purposes of classifying the aid at issue, is Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation No 659/1999, according to which “existing” aid is “aid which is deemed to be existing aid pursuant to Article 15” — Article 15 establishing a 10-year limitation period for recovering unlawfully granted aid — applicable and, if so, under what conditions —; or are the well established principles of the Court of Justice of the protection of legitimate expectation and legal certainty applicable and, if so, under what conditions (whether or not similar to the principle set out in the substantive law provision referred to above)?’

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


title: Case C-42/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Amiens — France) — European arrest warrant issued against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4(6) — Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Implementation in national law — Arrested person is a national of the issuing Member State — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence — Legislation of a Member State restricting the power not to execute the European arrest warrant to cases where the requested persons are nationals of that State)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/5

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Amiens — France) — European arrest warrant issued against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge
      (Case C-42/11) (1)

      (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4(6) - Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Implementation in national law - Arrested person is a national of the issuing Member State - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence - Legislation of a Member State restricting the power not to execute the European arrest warrant to cases where the requested persons are nationals of that State)
      (2012/C 331/07)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour d’appel d’Amiens

         Parties to the main proceedings

      João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel d’Amiens — Interpretation of Article 4(6) 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 Article 18 TFEU — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence — Legislation of a Member State restricting the option of non-execution of a European arrest warrant to cases in which the persons sought are nationals of that Member State — Discrimination based on nationality

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States and Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, although a Member State may, in transposing Article 4(6), decide to limit the situations in which an executing judicial authority may refuse to surrender a person who falls within the scope of that provision, it cannot automatically and absolutely exclude from its scope the nationals of other Member States staying or resident in its territory irrespective of their connections with it.
      The national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, to interpret that law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Framework Decision 2002/584, with a view to ensuring that that framework decision is fully effective and to achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it.

         (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-825/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors (Action for annulment — Fishing — Italian National Fisheries Data Collection Programme for the period 2009-2010 — Recovery of a part of the advances paid to the applicant — Court of Auditors’ preliminary report — Measure not open to challenge — Preparatory measure — Pre-information letters — Debit note — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/44

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors
   (Case T-825/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Fishing - Italian National Fisheries Data Collection Programme for the period 2009-2010 - Recovery of a part of the advances paid to the applicant - Court of Auditors’ preliminary report - Measure not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Pre-information letters - Debit note - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 270/50)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: F. Tedeschini, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro, D. Nardi and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents), and Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: N. Scafarto and L. Massocchi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for the annulment of the decision which contained the debit note of 30 September 2014 issued by the Commission for the recovery of the amount of EUR 458 347,35, the Court of Auditors’ report of 27 February 2013, the Commission’s letters of 12 July 2013 and 6 August 2014 and of any other prior, related, or in any event subsequent measure, even unknown, affecting the applicant’s legal financial situation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Court of Auditors of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-239/15: Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Cryo-Save v OHIM — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/44

         Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Cryo-Save v OHIM — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save)
   (Case T-239/15)
   (2015/C 236/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cryo-Save’ — Community trade mark No 4 625 216

      Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2015 in Case R 2567/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision to the effect that the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2013 is annulled and the application for revocation of Community trade mark No 4 625 216 is rejected;
               in the alternative: annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-473/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte (Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 10 and 11 — Obligation to inform — Article 13(1)(d) and (g) — Exceptions — Scope of exceptions — Private detectives acting for the supervisory body of a regulated profession — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 15(1))

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte
   (Case C-473/12) (1)

   (Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 10 and 11 - Obligation to inform - Article 13(1)(d) and (g) - Exceptions - Scope of exceptions - Private detectives acting for the supervisory body of a regulated profession - Directive 2002/58/EC - Article 15(1))
   2014/C 9/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI)

      Defendants: Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

      Intervening parties: Union professionnelle nationale des détectives privés de Belgique (UPNDP), Association professionnelle des inspecteurs et experts d’assurances ASBL (APIEA), Conseil des ministres

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 11(1) and 13(1)(d) and (g) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) and of Article 6(3) TEU — Whether there is full harmonisation — Option for a Member State to provide for a restriction of, or an exception to, the obligation to inform the person concerned immediately — Scope of the exception to that obligation — Whether the professional activities of private detectives are included — If not, whether Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC is compatible with Article 6(3) TEU, more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that Member States have no obligation, but have the option, to transpose into their national law one or more of the exceptions which it lays down to the obligation to inform data subjects of the processing of their personal data.
   The activity of a private detective acting for a professional body in order to investigate breaches of ethics of a regulated profession, in this case that of estate agent, is covered by the exception in Article 13(1)(d) of Directive 95/46.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case F-131/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Stips v Commission (Civil Service — Member of the temporary staff paid from research and investment appropriations — Article 2(d) CEOS — Contract of indefinite duration — Reclassification in the higher grade — 2013 reclassification round — Closure of the round after 1 January 2014 — Entry into force of Regulation No 1023/2013 — Methods of accessing grade AD 13 — Application, by analogy, of Article 45(1) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex I of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to reclassify an AD 12 member of the temporary staff — Suitability for reclassification — Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity — Right to good administration)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/38

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Stips v Commission
      (Case F-131/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff paid from research and investment appropriations - Article 2(d) CEOS - Contract of indefinite duration - Reclassification in the higher grade - 2013 reclassification round - Closure of the round after 1 January 2014 - Entry into force of Regulation No 1023/2013 - Methods of accessing grade AD 13 - Application, by analogy, of Article 45(1) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex I of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to reclassify an AD 12 member of the temporary staff - Suitability for reclassification - Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity - Right to good administration))
      (2016/C 364/46)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Adolf Stips (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reclassify the applicant as grade AD 13 in the 2013 reclassification round.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 21 January 2015, by which the European Commission did not reclassify Mr Adolf Stips as grade AD 13 in the 2013 reclassification round;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Stips.

         (1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 45.


title: Case T-746/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Andreassons Åkeri and Others v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/34

         Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Andreassons Åkeri and Others v Commission
   (Case T-746/16)
   (2017/C 038/47)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicants: Andreassons Åkeri i Veddige AB (Veddige, Sweden), Luke Transport AB (Laholm, Sweden), Zimit Transportförmedling AB i konkurs (Veddige) (represented by: A. Broch and C.M. von Quitzow)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (Ares (2016) 4309876 of 10 August 2016 to close down EU-Pilot 7504/15/EMPL

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: The applicants have, by means of civil law contracts, hired Polish self-employed workers with businesses registered in Poland, which then provided services to the applicants. After the contracted services were performed, the workers returned to Poland where they are resident under social security law. Subsequently, following special assessment (tax assessment), the Swedish Skatteverket (Tax Board) required the applicants to pay Swedish employer social security contributions in respect of the Polish self-employed workers and imposed special financial penalties on the applicants. That runs counter to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, which has now been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.

               2.

               Second plea in law: On the basis of Article 4 of Regulation No 574/72, which was applicable at the time of Sweden's accession to the EU, the Swedish Government designated the Försäkringskassan (Social Security Fund) as the competent authority for Sweden for social security law questions as regards the implementation of the rules of EU law relevant here. Under Swedish national law, however, it is the Skatteverket which ensures the collection of employer social security contributions.

               3.

               Third plea in law: The social security contributions have been deducted twice, which is precisely what the regulations in question are intended to prevent.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: There is a requirement that the individual must be registered with the Swedish Försäkringskassan so that Swedish employer contributions may be levied with regard to the Polish self-employed workers. There has been no examination by the Skatteverket of whether that was the case. The fact that, in accordance with the above, social security contributions are deducted without their having been deposited in respect of a particular person, as is the case in a number of Member States, must be regarded as contrary to EU law.


title: Case T-449/15: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2016 — Satkirit Holdings v EUIPO — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark luvo — Earlier EU work mark luvo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2016 — Satkirit Holdings v EUIPO — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvo)
   (Case T-449/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark luvo - Earlier EU work mark luvo - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 410/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 877/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Advanced Mailing Solutions and Satkirit Holdings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Satkirit Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-425/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — KODA v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/32

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — KODA v Commission
   (Case T-425/08)
   (2008/C 327/59)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Parties

      Applicant: KODA (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyrekjær and J. Borum)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC of 16 July 2008 in its entirety, or

               —

               in the alternative, annul Commission Decision COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC of 16 July 2008 in its entirety in so far as it concerns KODA, or

               —

               annul Article 3 and Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC of 16 July 2008, or

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 3 and Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC of 16 July 2008 in so far as it concerns KODA, or

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 3 and Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC of 16 July 2008 in so far as it concerns transmission by cable, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case is seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC, by which the Commission found that the applicant had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA through its reciprocal representation agreements or in practice had introduced membership restrictions (Article 1) and exclusivity clauses (Article 2) and, by having concerted territorial restrictions in such a manner as to limit a licence to each collecting society's national territory through the licensing of rights to public transmission of music over the Internet, via satellite and cable (Article 3).
   In support of its claims, the applicant has put forward the following:

               —

               the contested decision is vitiated by an essential procedural defect in that the statement of objections differs from the final decision on a central point;

               —

               the contested decision is based on an incorrect application of the law, in that: (i) it has not been established that the applicant's inclusion of territorial restrictions in its reciprocal agreements for the Internet, satellite or cable are the result of a concerted practice with the other EEA collecting societies, and (ii) the territorial restrictions are not anti-competitive.

         In the alternative, the applicant submits that no infringement has been demonstrated in the contested decision in so far as regards the licensing of rights via cable transmission.


title: Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by Anne-Marie Toller against the judgment delivered on 19 February 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-142/96 between Anne-Marie Toller and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-149/98 P)

text:
13.6.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 184/7
Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by Anne-Marie Toller                  principle of legal certainty: the Court of First Instance
against the judgment delivered on 19 February 1998 by                 acted inconsistently in criticising the appellant for having
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              failed timeously to contest the opinion of the Invalidity
European Communities in Case T-142/96 between Anne-                   Committee on which the appointing authority based its
Marie Toller and the Commission of the European                       decision of 1 July 1993 whilst at the same time
                          Communities                                 acknowledging that it was not until after those decisions
                      (Case C-149/98 P)                               had been taken that the various ailments giving rise to
                                                                      invalidity which are now alleged were diagnosed. It is also
                         (98/C 184/09)                                inconsistent to regard the opinion of the Invalidity
                                                                      Committee as definitive when it was also found that
                                                                      certain matters alleged by the appellant could not have
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
                                                                      been diagnosed at the time when the Invalidity Committee
1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                      gave its opinion on the appellant's condition, despite the
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-142/96
                                                                      fact that the ailment nevertheless existed. Moreover, it is
between Anne-Marie Toller and the Commission of the
                                                                      also inconsistent and incorrect to decide that, because
European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                      certain matters which made it possible, following the
Justice of the European Communities on 17 April 1998 by
                                                                      appellant's removal from her post, objectively to identify
Anne-Marie Toller, represented by Benoît Lombert and
                                                                      ailments giving rise to invalidity on her part, were brought
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                      to the attention of the Invalidity Committee in good time,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                                                                      that Committee necessarily took those ailments into
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                      account, and to find its medical opinion on those matters
                                                                      definitive.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                     Lastly, the considerations of the Court of First Instance
                                                                      regarding the correct classification to be applied to the
Ð consequently:                                                       appellant's request of 15 September 1995 are defective in
                                                                      fact and in law. It is wrong in law to maintain that that
    (a) set aside the judgment appealed against;                      request can be regarded as a complaint, even though that
                                                                      was the classification which both the appellant and the
    (b) itself adjudicate on the dispute and grant the                respondent purported to apply to the act. Provided that an
          appellant's initial application;                            application is not made in an attempt artificially to start
                                                                      time running again following the expiry of a time-limit for
                                                                      lodging a complaint, it is legitimately and validly open to
Ð annul the decision of 16 November 1995, notified to
                                                                      any official to have recourse to that procedure. That is a
    the appellant on 20 November 1995, expressly
                                                                      fortiori the position in the present case, since the request
    rejecting the request made by the appellant on
                                                                      for reconsideration of the decision of 1 July 1993 was not
    15 September 1995 pursuant to Article 90(1) of the
                                                                      made with a view to having that decision annulled for
    Staff Regulations, whereby she asked the appointing
                                                                      irregularity but was based on matters which could not
    authority to reconsider the decision of 1 July 1993,
                                                                      have served as the basis of a complaint against that
    notified by DG IX, acting as the appointing authority,
                                                                      decision, since the appellant was not aware of them at the
    which imposed on the appellant the disciplinary
                                                                      time.
    measure of removal from post without reduction or
    withdrawal of entitlement to a retirement pension and
    stated that, with immediate effect, her services were
    no longer required, the said decision taking effect from
    1 October 1993;
Ð annul the decision implicitly rejecting the complaint
    submitted pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff                  Appeal brought on 27 April 1998 by D.I.R. International
    Regulations, dated 13 February 1996;                              Film S.r.l. and others against the judgment delivered on
                                                                      19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court
Ð consequently, rule that the decision of 1 July 1993                 of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
    referred to above is ineffective and order that it be             T-85/95 between D.I.R. International Film S.r.l. and
    withdrawn by decision of the appointing authority;                 others and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-164/98 P)
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred
    both in the proceedings at first instance and in the                                      (98/C 184/10)
    present appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
                                                                      1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Breach of Community law, in particular of Article 33 of               of the European Communities in case T-85/95 (1) between
the Statute of the Court of Justice and of the general                D.I.R. International Film S.r.l. and others and the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 in Case T-86/04, Asa Sundholm v Commission of the European Communities (Staff case — Career development review — 2001-2002 Appraisal)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 20 April 2005
   in Case T-86/04, Asa Sundholm v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Staff case - Career development review - 2001-2002 Appraisal)
   (2005/C 155/35)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-86/04: Asa Sundholm, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis Kayser and H. Kraemer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the applicant's career development review for the 2001-2002 Appraisal — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; Registrar: I. Natsinas, has given a judgment on 20 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The decision of 10 April 2003 establishing a career development review for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 is annulled.

               2.

               The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-472/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Italy) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di L’Aquila (Italy) lodged on 7 August 2017 — Gabriele Di Girolamo v Ministero della Giustizia
   (Case C-472/17)
   (2017/C 347/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di L’Aquila

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gabriele Di Girolamo

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Is the work carried out by the applicant Giudice di Pace (magistrate) covered by the term ‘fixed-term worker’ for the purpose of Articles 1(3) and 7 of Directive 2003/88, (1) in conjunction with Clause 2 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70 (2) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               (2)

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may an [ordinary] or ‘togato’ judge [a career judge engaged on a permanent basis and salaried] be regarded as a permanent worker indistinguishable from a ‘Giudice di Pace’ fixed-term worker for the purposes of the application of Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70?

               (3)

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, do the differences between the procedure for the permanent recruitment of ordinary judges and the selective procedures laid down by law for the fixed-term recruitment of giudici di pace constitute objective grounds, within the meaning of Clause 4(1) and/or (4) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70, justifying a refusal to apply: (1) — as in the recent case-law of the Combined Chambers of the Corte di cassazione (Court of Cassation) in judgement No 13721/2017 and of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) in Opinion No 464/2017 of 8 April 2017 — to Giudici di Pace, such as the applicant fixed-term worker, the same employment conditions as those applied to comparable permanent ordinary judges; and (2) measures to prevent and impose penalties in respect of abusive use of fixed-term contracts, as referred to in Clause 5 of the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70 and the domestic implementing provision in Article 5(4bis) of Legislative Decree No 368/2001, in the absence of any fundamental principle under domestic law or any constitutional rule justifying either discrimination as regards employment conditions or an absolute prohibition on engaging Guidici di Pace on a permanent basis, bearing in mind, inter alia, the previous domestic provision (Article 1 of Law No 217/1974), which provided that the employment conditions of giudici onorari were indistinguishable from those of ordinary judges and that there was no longer to be recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts for such judges?

               (4)

               In any event, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is it contrary to Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to the concept under EU law of an independent and impartial tribunal for a Giudice di Pace who has an interest in the case before him being resolved in favour of the applicant, who, as his sole form of employment, performs exactly the same judicial functions, to stand in the place of the tribunal established by law as having jurisdiction because of the refusal by the highest domestic judicial body — the Combined Chambers of the Court of Cassation — to grant effective protection for the rights claimed, thus obliging the tribunal established as competent by law to decline, when requested, jurisdiction for the purpose of recognising the right claimed, notwithstanding the fact that the right in question — like the right to paid leave at issue in the main proceedings — is enshrined in primary and secondary EU law in a situation in which ‘Community’ law is directly and vertically applicable to the Member State in question? In the event that the Court finds that there is infringement of Article 47(2) of the Charter, it is requested to indicate domestic remedies to avoid a situation in which infringement of a provision of primary EU law coincides with an absolute refusal under domestic law to protect fundamental rights ensured by EU law in the particular circumstances of the case.

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case F-34/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 14 May 2014  — Alexandrou v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Access to documents)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 14 May 2014 — Alexandrou v Commission
   (Case F-34/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/231/12 - Non-admission to the assessment tests - Access to documents))
   2014/C 194/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the selection board for Competition EPSO/AD/231/12 not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests of that competition.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alexandrou to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20/07/2013, p. 58.


title: Case C-314/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône (SPMR) v Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED) (Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Mineral Oils — Losses — Exemption from tax — Force majeure)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône (SPMR) v Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)
   (Case C-314/06) (1)

   (Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duties - Mineral Oils - Losses - Exemption from tax - Force majeure)
   (2008/C 51/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône (SPMR)

      Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Exemption from duty provided for in respect of losses occurring under suspension arrangements which are attributable to fortuitous events or Force majeure and in respect of losses inherent in the nature of the products during production and processing, storage and transport — Applicability of that exemption to the loss of petroleum products resulting from leaks from and then the bursting of a pipeline operated by the approved warehousekeeper
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               ‘Force majeure’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, refers to abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances extraneous to the authorised warehousekeeper, the consequences of which, despite the exercise by him of all due care, could not have been avoided. The requirement that the circumstances must be extraneous to the authorised warehousekeeper is not limited to those circumstances which are outside his control in a material or physical sense, but refers also to circumstances which are objectively outside the authorised warehousekeeper's control or situated outside his sphere of responsibility.

               2.

               Losses of part of petroleum products which escaped from a pipeline, caused by the fact that those products were in a liquid state and the type of soil they spilled on prevented their recovery, cannot be regarded as ‘inherent in the nature of the products’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 94/74.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-269/02: Action brought on 23 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 219/8                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Action brought on 23 July 2002 by the Commission of                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
  the European Communities against the French Republic                     represented by C. Durand and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                            (Case C-269/02)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (2002/C 219/13)
                                                                           —     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation which
                                                                                subjects the marketing of food products for sportsmen
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                     lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July                          States to a requirement of applying for prior authorisation
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                              and of completion of the relevant procedure without
represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for                   having demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of
service in Luxembourg.                                                           such a requirement, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
—      Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
       within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the
       protection of the health and safety of workers from the
       risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth                Pleas in law and main arguments
       individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1)
       of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the French Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
—      Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Rules which subject the entry of a foodstuff onto a national
                                                                           market to completion of a prior authorisation procedure
                                                                           clearly represent an obstacle to the free movement of that
                                                                           product, which may nevertheless be justified if it appears that
                                                                           its marketing poses a potential risk to human health. In that
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            case, in the absence of rules of harmonisation at Community
                                                                           level, the Member States are empowered to fix the level at
                                                                           which they intend to ensure the protection of the health
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 5 May                   of consumers, which may justify a requirement of prior
2001.                                                                      authorisation for the entry of goods to the market, to the
                                                                           extent strictly necessary for the attainment of the safeguard
                                                                           objectives pursued.
( 1) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
                                                                           In the circumstances of the present case the Italian Government
                                                                           has not demonstrated the necessity of the authorisation
                                                                           procedure prior to the entry onto the market of the products
                                                                           in question, which are lawfully manufactured and marketed in
                                                                           other Member States. From the information provided to the
                                                                           Commission that procedure seems to amount merely to
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   checking the veracity of the statements on the label with
                                                                           respect to the effects which consumption of the products in
                                                                           question may have on athletes’ diets. In those circumstances
                            (Case C-270/02)                                the authorisation procedure therefore appears rather to pursue,
                                                                           not the objective of protecting health, but rather that of
                                                                           adequately informing the consumer, an objective which, in the
                            (2002/C 219/14)                                Commission’s opinion, may easily be attained by means less
                                                                           restrictive of trade than an authorisation procedure.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 1995 in Case C-389/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main): Anton Dürbeck GmbH v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (Bananas - Import arrangements - Category of new operators)

text:
No C 189/4             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 7 . 95
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Agent: Umberto Leanza ) — application for a declaration
                         ( Third Chamber)                               that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                        laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                           of 1 June 1995                               comply with Council Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989
in Case C-l 19/94 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of                on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                 the European Communities ( l )                         relating to machinery ( 2) and Council Directive 91/368/EEC
(Appeal — Official — Failure to give reasons for a decision             of 20 June 1991 amending Directive 89/392/EEC (3 ), the
rejecting an application — Award of compensation —                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
          Waiver of rights under the Staff Regulations)                 Community law — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed
                                                                        of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.
                            ( 95/C 189/07 )                             Jann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevôn,
                                                                        Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         has given a judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
           published in the European Court Reports)                            period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                               provisions necessary in order to comply with Council
In Case C-l 1 9/94 P : Dimitrios Coussios ( lawyer: Georges                    Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the
Sakellaropoulos ) — appeal against the judgment of the                         approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating
Court of First Instance of the European Communities ( Fifth                    to machinery and Council Directive 91 /368/EEC of
Chamber ) of 23 February 1994 in Joined Cases T-18/92 and                      20 June 1991 amending Directive 89/392/EEC, the
T-68/92 Coussios v . Commission [ 1994] ECR-SC II, p . 171 ,                   Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to                    Community law;
the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria
Alves Vieira ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of:               2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.                 t 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                           ( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 29 . 6 . 1989 , p . 9 .
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 ( 3 ) OJ No L 198 , 22 . 7. 1991 , p . 16.
judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
 1 , dismisses the appeal;
2, orders the appellant to pay the costs.
 f 1 ) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 June 1995
                                                                         in Case C-3 89/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main): Anton
                                                                               Dürbeck GmbH v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             Forstwirtschaft f 1 )
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                (Bananas — Import arrangements — Category of new
                                                                                operators)
                            of 1 June 1995
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/09 )
        in Case C-182/94 : Commission of the European
               Communities v. Italian Republic i 1 )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Council                            (Language of the case: German)
            Directives 89/392/EEC and 91/368/EEC)
                             ( 95/C 189/08 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         In Case C-389/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                      of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                          (Administrative Court), Frankfurt am Main ( Germany), for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 In Case C-182/94: Commission of the European                            court between Anton Durbeck GmbH and Bundesamt fiir
 Communities (Agent: Antonio Aresu ) v . Italian Republic                Ernâhrung und Forstwirtschaft (Federal Office for Food
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 7 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 189/5
and Forestry ) — on the interpretation of Article 1 9 ( 1 ) (c ) of                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 Council Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993                                           ( Sixth Chamber)
on the common organization of the market in bananas ( 2 )
and Article 2 (c ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                                                  of 8 June 1995
No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for              in Case C-451/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the application of the arrangements for importing bananas              from the Landessozialgericht fur das Saarland ): Claudine
into the Community ( 3 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber),                        Délavant v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse fur das
composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur), President of                                             Saarland (*)
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray                (Social security for migrant workers — Council Regulation
and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;                   (EEC) No 1408/71 — Worker residing in a Member State
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has            other than the competent State — Benefits in kind for
given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in which it rules:                    members of the worker's family in the State of residence)
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/10 )
 1 , the definition of Category C operators contained in
      Article 2 (c) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                                       (Language of the case: German)
      No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules
      for the application of-the arrangements for importing             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       bananas into the Community does not differ from that                      published in the European Court Reports)
      contained in Article 19 (1 ) (c) of Council Regulation
       (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common
      organization of the market in bananas;                           In Case C-451 /93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Landessozialgericht fiir das
                                                                       Saarland ( Higher Social Court, Saarland) for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
2 . Article 19 (1 ) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and              Claudine Délavant and Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse fiir
      Article 2 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 are to be           das Saarland ( Local General Sickness Fund, Saarland), in the
      interpreted as meaning that, when applying for                   presence of Valérie and Stéphanie Délavant, interveners in
      registration under Category C, an operator must not              the main proceedings — on the interpretation of Articles
      already have developed an activity aimed at marketing             1 ( f), 2 ( 1 ), 3 ( 1 ), 19 ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( 2 ), and 20 of Council
       bananas;                                                        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, as codified by Council
3 . Article 19 (1 ) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and              Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (2 ) — the
      Article 2 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 are to be           Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,
      interpreted as meaning that an operator may apply for            President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris
      registration under Category C even if he intends to
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G.
      transfer the import licence to a third party;                   Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       8 June 1995 , in which it rules :
4. Economic operators who entered into business prior to
       1 992 with a view to importing the bananas specified in         Article 19 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
      Article 2 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 and who             14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
      imported those bananas in 1992 or later can be                   to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
      registered as Category C operators;                              members oftheir families moving within the Community, as
                                                                       codified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of2 June
                                                                       1983 , is to be understood as meaning that when a worker
5 . Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 , which               resides with the members of his family in the territory of a
                                                                       Member State other than the Member State in which he
      provides that wholesalers and retailers are not to be
      regarded as operators, is not applicable to the concept of       works, under whose legislation he is insured by virtue ofthe
      operator within the meaning of Article 2 (c) of that             Regulation, the conditions for entitlement to sickness
      Regulation.                                                      benefits in kind for members of that person's family are also
                                                                      governed by the legislaton ofthe State in which that person
                                                                       works in so far as the members of his family are not entitled
                                                                       to those benefits under the legislation of their State of
(') OJ No C 256, 21 . 9 . 1993 .                                       residence.
( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 , p . 6 .
                                                                       (M OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .


title: Case F-38/06 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of  31 May 2006  — Bianchi v European Training Foundation (Proceedings for interim relief — Application for suspension of operation and fot interim measures)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/34

         Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 May 2006 — Bianchi v European Training Foundation
   (Case F-38/06 R)
   (Proceedings for interim relief - Application for suspension of operation and fot interim measures)
   (2006/C 165/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Irène Bianchi (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Training Foundation (represented by: M. Dunbar, Director, assisted by G. Vandersanden, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, suspension of execution of the decision of 24 October 2005 by which the European Training Foundation refused to renew the applicant's temporary agent contract and, second, the granting of interim measures.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


               18.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/22

         Lists for the determination of the composition of the formations of the Court
   (2006/C 42/08)
   At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court drew up the list referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the determination of the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

               A.M. La Pergola

               L.Bay Larsen

               J.-P. Puissochet

               A. Ó Caoimh

               R. Schintgen

               E. Levits

               N. Colneric

               U. Lõhmus

               S. von Bahr

               J. Klučka

               J.N. Cunha Rodrigues

               J. Malenovský

               R. Silva De Lapuerta

               M. Ilešič

               K. Lenaerts

               A. Borg Barthet

               K. Schiemann

               G. Arestis

               J. Makarczyk

               E. Juhász

               P. Kūris

         At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court drew up the list referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the determination of the composition of the Second Chamber as follows:

               R. Schintgen

               L.Bay Larsen

               R. Silva De Lapuerta

               J. Klučka

               J. Makarczyk

               G. Arestis

               P. Kūris

         At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court drew up the list referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the determination of the composition of the Fifth Chamber as follows:

               R. Schintgen

               R. Silva De Lapuerta

               P. Kūris

               G. Arestis

               J. Klučka

               L.Bay Larsen


title: Case T-850/14: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2015 — CompuGroup Medical v OHIM — Schatteiner (SAM) (Action for annulment — Community trade mark — Time-limit for bringing an action — Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal to the electronic account at OHIM of the applicant’s representative — Out of time — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/28

         Order of the General Court of 18 December 2015 — CompuGroup Medical v OHIM — Schatteiner (SAM)
   (Case T-850/14)
   ((Action for annulment - Community trade mark - Time-limit for bringing an action - Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal to the electronic account at OHIM of the applicant’s representative - Out of time - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 068/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Simon Schatteiner (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schulz and H. Pernez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2014 (Case R 818/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Simon Schatteiner and CompuGroup Medical AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               CompuGroup Medical AG shall pay the costs.


title: Case C-442/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — Pensa Pharma SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Appeal — EU trade mark — Word mark PENSA PHARMA — Figurative mark pensa — Applications for a declaration of invalidity of the holders of the word marks pentasa — Declaration of invalidity — Proceedings before EUIPO — Change in the subject matter of the proceedings — New plea before the General Court)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/22

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — Pensa Pharma SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S
   (Case C-442/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Word mark PENSA PHARMA - Figurative mark pensa - Applications for a declaration of invalidity of the holders of the word marks pentasa - Declaration of invalidity - Proceedings before EUIPO - Change in the subject matter of the proceedings - New plea before the General Court))
   (2016/C 419/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Pensa Pharma SA (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, and D. Slopek, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Pensa Pharma SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case F-138/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2011 — Van Arum v Parliament

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2011 — Van Arum v Parliament
   (Case F-138/07) (1)

   2012/C 138/91
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008, p. 48.


title: Case C-426/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku — Republic of Poland) — Dariusz Krawczyński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku (Internal taxation — Taxes on motor vehicles — Excise duty — Second-hand vehicles — Importation)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku — Republic of Poland) — Dariusz Krawczyński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku
   (Case C-426/07) (1)

   (Internal taxation - Taxes on motor vehicles - Excise duty - Second-hand vehicles - Importation)
   (2008/C 223/26)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dariusz Krawczyński

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku — Interpretation of Article 90 EC and Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation establishing excise duty charged on any sale of a passenger car before its initial registration on national territory
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, is to be interpreted as not precluding an excise duty such as that provided for in Poland by the Law on Excise Duty (ustawa o podatku akcyzowym) of 23 January 2004, which is charged on all sales of motor vehicles before their first registration on national territory.

               2.

               The first paragraph of Article 90 EC is to be interpreted as precluding an excise duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as the amount of the duty imposed on the sale, before their first registration, of second-hand vehicles imported from another Member State exceeds the residual amount of the same duty incorporated into the market value of similar vehicles previously registered in the Member State which introduced that duty. It is for the national court to examine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, and in particular the application of Article 7 of the Order of the Minister for Finance on the lowering of the rates of excise duty (rozporządzenie Ministra Finansów w sprawie obniżenia stawek podatku akcyzowego) of 22 April 2004, has such an effect.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case T-136/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Commission v Gal-Or (Arbitration clause — Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of non-nuclear energy — Failure to comply with the contract — Reimbursement of advance payments — Default interest — Default procedure)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Commission v Gal-Or
   (Case T-136/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of non-nuclear energy - Failure to comply with the contract - Reimbursement of advance payments - Default interest - Default procedure)
   2010/C 317/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, Agents, by B. Katan and M. van der Woude, lawyers, and subsequently by B. Katan)

      Defendant: Benjamin Gal-Or (Jupiter, Florida, United States)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeking an order that Mr Gal-Or reimburse the amount of EUR 205 611 advanced to him by the Commission in the context of contract IN/0042/97, together with default interest, and for payment of default interest on the amount of EUR 9 231,25, which is the amount of the costs incurred in an action brought by Mr Gal-Or against the Commission before the courts in the Netherlands.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Mr Benjamin Gal-Or to pay to the European Commission the principal amount owing of EUR 205 611, together with interest at the rate of:

                           —

                           2,75 % from 2 March 2003;

                           —

                           2,50 % from 7 March 2003;

                           —

                           2,00 % from 6 June 2003;

                           —

                           2,25 % from 6 December 2005;

                           —

                           2,50 % from 8 March 2006;

                           —

                           2,75 % from 15 June 2006;

                           —

                           3,00 % from 9 August 2006;

                           —

                           3,25 % from 11 October 2006;

                           —

                           3,50 % from 13 December 2006;

                           —

                           3,75 % from 14 March 2007;

                           —

                           4,00 % from 13 June 2007;

                           —

                           4,25 % from 9 July 2008;

                           —

                           3,75 % from 15 October 2008;

                           —

                           3,25 % from 12 November 2008;

                           —

                           2,50 % from 10 December 2008;

                           —

                           2,00 % from 21 January 2009;

                           —

                           1,50 % from 11 March 2009;

                           —

                           1,25 % from 8 April 2009;

                           —

                           1,00 % from 13 May 2009;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Mr Gal-Or to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-173/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Carrera — Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Hesse and Lutter & Partner v OHIM — Porsche (Carrera)
      (Case T-173/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Carrera - Earlier Community and national word marks CARRERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial substitution of a party to the proceedings)
      (2015/C 016/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Kurt Hesse (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer) and Lutter & Partner GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 306/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG and Mr Kurt Hesse.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH to bear their own costs and orders each of them to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.

         (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-156/10 P: Appeal brought on 6 April 2010 by Mr Karen Goncharov against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2010 in Case T-34/07 Karen Goncharov v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DSB

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/21

         Appeal brought on 6 April 2010 by Mr Karen Goncharov against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2010 in Case T-34/07 Karen Goncharov v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DSB
   (Case C-156/10 P)
   2010/C 148/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Karen Goncharov (represented by: A. Späth and G.N. Hasselblatt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), DSB

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests the Court to:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 (Case T-34/07);

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 December 2006 (Case R 1330/2005-2); and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Board of Appeal, as well as the appellant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 (Case T-34/07) should be set aside, because it infringes the provision on the relative grounds for refusal of registration contained in Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark).
   The General Court misapplied the general principles concerning the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. In particular, it failed to take the circumstances of the present case fully into account, by disregarding the fact that the marks at issue consist in acronyms.
   The General Court bases its decision finally only on a general rule according to which the consumer usually attaches greater weight to the first part of words. Thus, the difference in the form of the letter ‘W’ in the contested mark is not sufficient to eliminate the visual and aural similarity.
   The General Court thereby ignored the fact that the marks in conflict are not words, but acronyms. The reasoning of the judgment shows that the General Court failed to undertake a comprehensive examination of the likelihood of confusion, relying instead only on a general rule, which is moreover not applicable at all to the present case.
   The consumer is in fact accustomed in the case of acronyms to directing his attention specifically to each single letter. General rules concerning word marks consisting in words may not therefore be applied without hesitation to word marks consisting in acronyms.


title: Case C-236/06: Action brought on  24 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/22

         Action brought on 24 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-236/06)
   (2006/C 165/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive expired on 12 October 2004.

      (1)   OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16.