title: Case T-317/10 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2011 by L against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/24

         Appeal brought on 18 July 2011 by L against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament
   (Case T-317/10 P)
   2011/C 340/51
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Appellant: L (Luxemburg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.), represented by Audrey Sèbe and Vytautas Sviderskis, lawyers

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament;

               —

               uphold, as being well founded in whole or in part, the pleas put forward by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant sets out eight grounds:

               1.

               The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the concept of ‘decision taken in response to the complaint’ (‘décision prise en réponse à la réclamation’). In the view of the appellant, the decision taken on 10 July 2007 by the authority of the European Parliament empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) was incorrectly held to be a new decision dismissing the appellant and setting aside the first dismissal decision, as it did not re-establish the situation which existed before the first decision was adopted.

               2.

               The second ground of appeal relates to the inadmissibility of the decision of the AECE of 13 February 2008 by which the appellant’s second complaint was rejected, on the ground that the appellant did not receive that decision until 27 February 2008, that is to say, after the appellant had submitted his third application on 25 February 2008.

               3.

               The third ground of appeal alleges breach of the right of defence. In the appellant’s view, the finding of the Civil Service Tribunal that that principle does not apply in the case where a temporary employment contract based on mutual trust has been terminated is contrary to the case-law of the European Union Courts and to the findings of the International Labour Organisation.

               4.

               The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the consequences of the breach of Article 10 of the Parliament’s internal rules [on the recruitment of officials and other servants] by ruling that the dismissal decision could not be set aside on grounds of breach of the duty of prior notification of the Staff Committee.

               5.

               The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of impartiality.

               6.

               The sixth ground of appeal alleges breach of the duty to give reasons, as, in the appellant’s view, no reasons whatsoever were given for the decision of 10 July 2007.

               7.

               The seventh ground of appeal alleges a breach of the right to effective judicial procedure, in view of the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to assess the correctness and seriousness of the grounds of dismissal.

               8.

               The eighth ground of appeal alleges that there was a manifest error of assessment in that the appellant’s dismissal was not based on factual evidence.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 17 April 1997 in Joined Cases C-274/95, C-275/95 and C-276/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Ludwig Wünsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Common Customs Tariff - Combined nomenclature - Potato starch)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 199/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       an extension of the period prescribed for lodging such
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                    an objection.
                        of 17 April 1997
                                                                      4. Article 119 of the Treaty requires that widowers
in Case C-147/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                       discriminated against in breach of that provision be
from the Dükitiko Efetio Athinon): Dimosia Epicheirisi                      awarded a pension or other survivor's benefit under
        Ilectrismou ( DEI ) v. Evthimios Evrenopoulos ( J )                 the same conditions as widows.
(Social policy — Men and women — Equal treatment —
                                                                      H OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Directive
79/7/EEC — Insurance scheme of a State electricity
company — survivors ' pensions — Protocol No 2 to the
Treaty on European Union — Meaning of 'legal
                           proceedings ')
                          ( 97/C 199/04 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fourth Chamber)
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                of 17 April 1997
                                                                      in Joined Cases C-274/95 , C-275/95 and C-276/95
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                   ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Bundesfinanzhof): Ludwig Wünsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Hamburg-Jonas (')
In Case C-147/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      (Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature —
of the EC Treaty from the Dükitiko Efetio Athinon
                                                                                Potato starch)
( Administrative Appeal Court, Athens ) ( Greece ), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                        ( 97/C 199/05 )
court between Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilectrismou ( DEI ) and
Evthimios Evrenopoulos — on the interpretation of                                      (Language of the case: German)
Article 119 of the EC Treaty, the Protocol concerning
Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and Council Directive 79/7/EEC of                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of                             published in the European Court Reports)
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
matters of social security ( OJ No L 6, 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 )       In Joined Cases C-274/95 , C-275/95 and C-276/95
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.                     reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
Mancini , President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L.               by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary ruling in the
Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                       proceedings pending before that court between Ludwig
Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                 Wünsche & Co. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — on
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                the interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff, as laid
judgment on 17 April 1997, in which it has ruled :                    down in Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3618/86 of
                                                                      24 November 1986 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331 /
1 . The benefits granted under a pension scheme such as               85 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 950/68 on the
     the insurance scheme of the Dimosia Epicheirisi                  Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 345 , 8 . 12 . 1996, p. 1 ),
     Ilectrismou, including survivors ' benefits, fall within         and of the combined nomenclature, as contained in
     the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty.                       Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on
                                                                      the     tariff  and  statistical   nomenclature   and   on   the
                                                                      Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 256, 7. 9 . 1987, p. 1 )
2 . Where a survivor 's pension falls within the definition           — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: J. L.
     of pay for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty,            Murray, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn
     Article 119 precludes the application of a provision of          ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,
     national law which makes the award of such a                     Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator for
     pension to a widower subject to special conditions               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997, in
     which are not applied to widows, and there is no rule            which it has ruled :
     of Community law which could justify the
     maintenance in force of such a provision.
                                                                      1 . The classification       of esterified potato starch under
                                                                            heading 11.08 A        IV of Council Regulation (EEC)
3 . On a proper construction of the Protocol concerning                     No 3618/86 of           24 November 1986 amending
     Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European                    Regulation (EEC)       No 3331 /85 amending Regulation
     Community, that Article may be relied upon in                          (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff
     proceedings initiated before 17 May 1990 in order to                   (and under subheading 1108 13 00 of the combined
     obtain benefits under an occupational social security                  nomenclature, as contained in Council Regulation
     scheme, even if the action was declared inadmissible                   (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
     on the ground that the applicant had not lodged a                      statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
     prior objection, where the national court has granted                  Tariff), or under heading 39.06 B I of the Common
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 6 . 97
     Customs Tariff (and under subheading 3505 10 50 of                1 . The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80
     the combined nomenclature) is primarily dependent on                  of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
     its acetyl content and thus on its degree of                          Association, adopted by the Association Council
     esterification. Nevertheless, it is for the national court            established by the Association Agreement between the
     to determine whether the nature of the esterification                 European Economic Community and Turkey, does not
     does not amount to an alteration of the potato starch                 in principle preclude the competent authorities of a
     such that it no longer corresponds qualitatively to                   Member State from requiring that the family members
     native potato starch.                                                 of a Turkish worker, referred to by that provision, live
                                                                           with him for the period of three years prescribed by
                                                                           the first indent of that Article in order to be entitled to
2 . A maximum acetyl content of between 0,61% and                          reside in that Member State. There may however be
     0,74% by weight of esterified potato starch does not                  objective reasons to justify the family member
     preclude its being classified under heading 11.08 A IV                concerned living apart from the Turkish migrant
     of the Common Customs Tariff and under subheading                     worker.
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature.
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                     2 . The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of
                                                                           Decision No 1 /80 is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           the family member concerned is in principle required
                                                                           to reside uninterruptedly for three years in the host
                                                                           Member State. However, account must be taken, for
                                                                           the purpose of calculating the three-year period of
                                                                           legal residence within the meaning of that provision,
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of an involuntary stay of less than six months by the
                                                                           person concerned in his country of origin. The same
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                  applies to the period during which the person
                        of 17 April 1997                                    concerned was not in possession of a valid residence
                                                                           permit, where the competent authorities of the host
in Case C-351/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Member State did not claim on that ground that the
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen): Selma                        person concerned was not legally resident within
                 Kadiman v. Freistaat Bayern (')                            national territory, but on the contrary issued a new
                                                                            residence permit to him.
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
Association Council — Free movement of workers —
Member of a worker's family — Extension of residence                   (') OJ No C 16,20 . 1 . 1996 .
permit — Conditions — Family unity — Legal residence
for three years — Calculation in the event of
                            interruptions)
                            ( 97/C 199/06 )
                 (Language of the case: German)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 22 April 1997
                                                                       in Case C-66/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Queen v. Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte:
                                                                                Eunice Sutton ( 1 )
 In Case C-351 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and
 of the EC Treaty by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht                 women in matters of social security — Responsibility of a
 Miinchen ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the                   Member State for an infringement of Community law —
 proceedings pending before that court between Selma                    Right to receive interest on arrears of social security
 Kadiman and Freistaat Bayern — on the interpretation of                                             benefits)
 the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80 of the
 Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the                                                 ( 97/C 199/07 )
 development of the Association, adopted by the
 Association Council established by the Association
 Agreement between the European Economic Community                                     (Language of the case: English)
 and Turkey — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:
 G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray,
 P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen                        In Case C-66/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D.              of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice of
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator for the                      England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997, in                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 which it has ruled :                                                   court between The Queen v. Secretary of State for Social


title: Case C-94/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Danfoss A/S, Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet (Indirect taxes — Excise duties on mineral oils — Incompatibility with European Union law — Non-repayment of excise duty to purchasers of goods to whom the excise duty has been passed on)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Danfoss A/S, Sauer-Danfoss ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-94/10) (1)

   (Indirect taxes - Excise duties on mineral oils - Incompatibility with European Union law - Non-repayment of excise duty to purchasers of goods to whom the excise duty has been passed on)
   2011/C 362/08
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Danfoss A/S, Sauer-Danfoss ApS

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of European Union law on recovery of sums unduly paid and the conditions for compensation for losses caused to individuals — Excise duties levied contrary to the system of harmonised excise duties put in place by 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) and Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duty on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Unlawful excise duty paid to the State by oil companies which sold oils subject to excise duty whilst incorporating the excise duty into the price of the goods — Failure by the State to repay the excise duty to purchasers of the oils on the ground that they had not paid it to the State — Refusal to compensate for the losses caused to the purchasers of the oils by the unlawful excise duty due to the lack of immediate loss and direct causal link between the infringement of the State’s obligation and the loss suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The rules of European Union law must be construed as meaning that:

               1.

               a Member State may oppose a claim for reimbursement of a duty unduly paid, brought by the purchaser to whom that duty has been passed on, on the ground that it is not the purchaser who has paid the duty to the tax authorities, provided that the purchaser is able, on the basis of national law, to bring a civil action against the taxable person for recovery of the sum unduly paid and provided that the reimbursement, by that taxable person, of the duty unduly paid is not virtually impossible or excessively difficult;

               2.

               a Member State may reject a claim for damages brought by a purchaser to whom a duty unduly paid has been passed on by the taxable person, on the ground that there is no direct causal link between the levying of that duty and the damage suffered, provided that the purchaser is able, on the basis of national law, to bring that claim against the taxable person and provided that the compensation, by that taxable person, of the damage suffered by the purchaser is not virtually impossible or excessively difficult.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof by Decision of 12 August 1998 in the case of The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v. Nycomed Austria GmbH (Case C-330/98)

text:
C 340/8               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.11.98
    Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution                     merely clarified how product in Regulation (EEC)
    caused by certain dangerous substances discharged                   No 1768/92 was to be understood ab initio?
    into the aquatic environment of the Community, the
    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           3. If the answer to Question 2 is that Regulation (EC)
    under that Directive;                                               No 1610/96 amended Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92:
2. declares that, by failing to provide the Commission                  When determining whether the conditions for granting
    with the information requested by it on the level of                a protection certificate under Article 19 of Regulation
    water pollution in Italy in order to enable it to                   (EEC) No 1768/92 are satisfied, is the relevant date
    establish the extent of the obligations flowing from                that on which the application for the protection
    Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC, the Italian                      certificate was made or that on which the national
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                 authority (here, the Austrian Patent Office) issued its
    Article 5 of the EC Treaty;                                         decision?
                                                                    4. If the term product in Article 19 of Regulation (EEC)
3. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        No 1768/92 is to be given a broad construction,
                                                                        whether ab initio or only since Regulation (EC)
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.                                              No 1610/96, but the relevant legal position is that
                                                                        prevailing at the time of the decision on the
                                                                        application for the protection certificate:
                                                                        Does a breach of Article 19 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1768/92 constitute a ground for invalidity that is
                                                                        not set out in Article 15 of that Regulation, or is the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                      protection certificate otherwise ineffective?
Gerichtshof by Decision of 12 August 1998 in the case of
The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v. Nycomed Austria GmbH                 (1) OJ L 182 of 2.7.1992, p. 1.
                       (Case C-330/98)                              (2) OJ L 198 of 8.8.1996, p. 30.
                        (98/C 340/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by Decision of 12 August 1998
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court),
                                                                    Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, by order of
which was received at the Court Registry on 7 September
                                                                    that court of 28 January 1998, in the case of Agenzia R di
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The
                                                                    Recapito Srl v. Poste Italiane Ente Pubblico Economico
Wellcome Foundation Ltd v. Nycomed Austria GmbH on
                                                                                and Rinaldi Agenzia di Recapito Srl
the following questions:
                                                                                (Case C-336/98)
1   Is the term product, as used in Ð inter alia Ð                                          (98/C 340/14)
    Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92
    of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    supplementary protection certificate for medicinal              European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
    products (1), to be construed in that article as covering       Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy
    only an active ingredient or substance in a specific            Regional Administrative Court) of 28 January 1998,
    chemical compound or Ð in so far as the                         which was received at the Court Registry on 14 September
    pharmacological characteristics are equivalent Ð also           1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Agenzia R di
    its derivatives (such as salts)?                                Recapito Srl v. Poste Italiane Ente Pubblico Economico
                                                                    and Rinaldi Agenzia di Recapito Srl, on the following
                                                                    questions:
2. if the answer to Question 1 is that the term product is
    to be broadly construed:
                                                                    1. Whether or not the reservation to the State of the
                                                                        express postal service, by virtue of Presidential Decree
    If such a construction of the term product as used in               No 156/76 (and the consequent restrictive power
    Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92                   under public law to grant concessions to third parties
    derives only from the recitals in the preamble to                   for the running of those services) conflicts with
    Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European                          Articles 86 and 90 of the Treaty as regards the services
    Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996                       which are regarded as supplementary to the exclusive
    concerning the creation of a supplementary protection               right of the State to collect, carry and deliver mail and
    certificate for plant protection products (2), which may,           which in any event can be dissociated from that right
    mutatis mutandis, be used also for the purpose of                   on the basis of calculation of the added value arising
    construing Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, was                         from the extra price which the customer is prepared to
    Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 amended by Regulation                   pay, without, however, there being any impact on
    (EC) No 1610/96, or has Regulation (EC) No 1610/96                  price limits in the reserved sector?


title: Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam
   (Case C-311/04)
   (2004/C 239/04)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal, Netherlands) of 28 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Additional Note (EC) 1 to Chapter 10 of the Common Customs Tariff, as set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, valid in so far as it lays down requirements in respect of the term ‘semi-milled rice’ that differ from those laid down in the Customs Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it possible for an appellant to plead good faith pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code in a situation where the appellant was or ought to have been aware of Additional Note (EC) 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the CN but did not know or may at least have had doubts as to whether that note was valid in the light of the different description set out in the Custom Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System?

      (1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.


title: Case T-106/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO — Earlier EU figurative mark zero — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — zero v EUIPO — Hemming (ZIRO)
   (Case T-106/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark ZIRO - Earlier EU figurative mark zero - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 086/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: zero Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Oliver Hemming (Cadbury, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between zero Holding and Mr Hemming.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 71/2015-5);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-181/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Nordschleife — Earlier Community word mark Management by Nordschleife — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife)
   (Case T-181/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Nordschleife - Earlier Community word mark Management by Nordschleife - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nürburgring GmbH (Nürburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lutz Biedermann (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2014 (Case R 163/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Lutz Biedermann and Nürburgring GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nürburgring GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-472/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 September 2011 — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Csaba Csipai and Viktória Csipai

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 September 2011 — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Csaba Csipai and Viktória Csipai
   (Case C-472/11)
   2011/C 370/26
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

      Defendant: Csaba Csipai, Viktória Csipai

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the procedures of a national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, where a contract term is held to be unfair, and the parties did not submit a claim to that effect, the court informs them that it holds sentence 4 of clause 29 of the standard contract terms of the loan agreement between the parties to the proceedings to be invalid? That invalidity arises from breach of the legislation, namely Paragraph 1(1)(c) and (2)(j) of Government Decree 18/1999 on Unfair Contract Terms.

               2.

               In the circumstances of the first question, is it permissible for the court to direct the parties to the proceedings to make a statement in relation to the contract term in question, so that the legal implications of any unfairness may be established and so that the aims expressed in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC may be achieved?

               3.

               In the circumstances described above, is it permissible for the court, when examining an unfair contract term, to examine all the terms of the contract, or may it examine only the terms on which the party concluding the contract with the consumer bases his claim?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-49/99 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-38/98 Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the European Union

text:
C 100/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.4.1999
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission               Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
                         Luxembourg                                Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                        (Case C-47/99)                             Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       (1999/C 100/24)
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                that the Court should:
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of               Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period
the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                     to adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an                    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos              measures necessary in order fully to comply with
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            Council Directive 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993
                                                                       concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
The Commission of the European Communities claims                      working time (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
that the Court should:                                                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
                                                                       under that directive;
Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
    adopt, alternatively to communicate to the                     Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative               costs.
    measures necessary in order fully to comply with
    Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
    protection of young persons at work (1), the Grand             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
    directive;                                                     Under Article 189 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,
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
    costs.                                                         down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
                                                                   in the present case expired on 23 November 1996 without
                                                                   the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                 force the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
                                                                   directive referred to in the Commission's application.
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,       (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 22 June 1996 without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
directive referred to in the Commission's application.
                                                                   Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Associazione
 1                                                                 Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
( ) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
                                                                   Vincenzo Di Giovine against the order made on
                                                                   8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended
                                                                   Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                   European Communities in Case T-38/98 Associazione
                                                                   Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
                                                                     Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-49/99 P)
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
of the Europan Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                     (1999/C 100/26)
                         Luxembourg
                        (Case C-48/99)
                                                                   An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of
                       (1999/C 100/25)                             the European Communities on 12 February 1999 by
                                                                   Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco
                                                                   Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine, represented by Luigi
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Filippo Paolucci and Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/15
Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde,                the case of Jean-Marie Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par
against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the                       reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA),
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                  Association GeÂneÂrale des Institutions de Retraite des
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-38/               Cadres (AGIRC), Union Interprofessionnelle de Retraite
98 Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco                de l'Industrie et du Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale
Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the                       Interprofessionnelle de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS),
European Union.                                                        Association des ReÂgimes de Retraite CompleÂmentaire
                                                                       (ARRCO) on the following question:
The appellants claim that the Court should set aside the               Is Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which asserts the
Court of First Instance's order of 8 December 1998 in                  principle of equal pay for men and women, applicable to
Case T-39/98 by declaring the application to be admissible             the supplementary retirement pension schemes of AGIR
and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a           and ARRCO and does it prohibit them from
decision on the substance.                                             discriminating between men and women in respect of the
                                                                       age at which they are entitled to a survivor's pension
                                                                       following the death of their spouse?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The legal effects of the contested regulation (1) are direct
inasmuch as its operative provision does not require any
subsequent measure of implementation by a Community
institution or a national authority.                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo per la Basilicata (Administrative Tribunal
                                                                       of the Basilicata region) by order of that court of
That provision adversely affects the appellants                        22 October 1998, in the case of Massimo Triumbari v.
individually' and in a manner which distinguishes them                Questore della provincia di Potenza (Chief of Police of the
from any other producer.                                               province of Potenza) and the Minister of Finance and the
                                                                                Minister of the Interior
                                                                                (Case C-51/99)
It follows      that   the   application   must     be  declared                              (1999/C 100/28)
admissible.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    authorising Portugal to grand aid to sugar beet producers and      European Communities by order of 22 October 1998,
    abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year         which was received at the Court Registry on 16 February
    (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).                                      1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Massimo
                                                                       Triumbari v. Questore della provincia di Potenza and the
                                                                       Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services
                                                                       preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in
                                                                       view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                prevent fraud that justify it?
Grande Instance (First Chamber), Paris, by judgment of
that court of 12 January 1999 in the case of Jean-Marie
Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs
Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA), Association GeÂneÂrale des
Institutions de Retraite des Cadres (AGIRC), Union
Interprofessionnelle de Retraite de l'Industrie et du
Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale Interprofessionnelle               References for preliminary rulings from the Cour du
de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS), Association des ReÂgimes            Travail de LieÁge (13th Chamber) by judgments of that
            de Retraite CompleÂmentaire (ARRCO)                        court of 2 February 1999 in the cases of Office National
                                                                       des Pensions v. Gioconda Camarotto and Office National
                         (Case C-50/99)
                                                                                des Pensions v. Giuseppina Vignone
                        (1999/C 100/27)                                                (Case C-52/99 and C-53/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Grande Instance (Regional Court) (First Chamber), Paris,               European Communities by judgments of the 13th
of 12 January 1999, which was received at the Court                    Chamber of the Cour du Travail (Higher Labour Court),
Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in              LieÁge, of 2 February 1999, which were received at the


title: Case C-197/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya v Administración del Estado (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Entitlements to payments from the national reserve — Conditions for granting — Farmers commencing an agricultural activity — Hypothetical nature of the question referred — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-197/10) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Entitlements to payments from the national reserve - Conditions for granting - Farmers commencing an agricultural activity - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unió de Pagesos de Catalunya

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Intervening party: Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos — Iniciativa Rural del Estado Español

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 42(3) of Council Regulation No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAFRD (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1) — Integrated administration and control system for certain support schemes — Single payment scheme — Fixing of the reference amount — Entitlement to the payment not granted in certain situations — Young farmers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) by decision of 18 March 2010 is inadmissible because the question referred is hypothetical.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case C-386/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 4(2) — Cross-border distributions of dividends — Corporation tax — Group taxation (French intégration fiscale) — Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group — Residence qualification — Dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries — Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles — France) — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-386/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 4(2) - Cross-border distributions of dividends - Corporation tax - Group taxation (French intégration fiscale) - Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group - Residence qualification - Dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries - Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding))
   (2015/C 354/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Groupe Steria SCA

      Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State that govern a tax integration regime under which a tax-integrated parent company is entitled to neutralisation as regards the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies, when such neutralisation is refused to it under those rules as regards the dividends distributed to it from subsidiaries located in another Member State, which, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case T-616/15: Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Transtec v Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/67

         Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Transtec v Commission
   (Case T-616/15)
   (2016/C 027/85)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Transtec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the set-off decisions of the European Commission contained in its letters of 25 August, 27 August, 7 September, 16 September and 23 September 2015 by which it recovered the sum of EUR 624 388,73;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 624 388,73 plus late payment interest on that sum, to be determined on the basis of the European Central Bank reference rate plus two percentage points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage, set at the symbolic amount of EUR 1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the 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 infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the contested decisions have no valid legal basis.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment, in so far as the sum of EUR 607 096,08 plus interest was deducted from the applicant’s assets and increased the wealth of the Commission without any legal basis for that enrichment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 42, 44, 45 and 47 of the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the 9th European Development Fund, in so far as the Commission did not exercise the discretion conferred on it by those provisions, and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, in so far as the Commission disregarded Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment.


title: Case T-217/12: Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/25

         Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)
   (Case T-217/12)
   2012/C 217/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shark AG (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: D. Campbell, Barrister, and P. Strickland, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 360/2011-1; and

               —

               Order the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘UNLEASH THE BEAST!’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark registration No 5093174

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration No 2729366 of the word mark ‘BRING OUT THE BEAST’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 2730133 of the figurative mark ‘COOL BITE BRING OUT THE BEAST’, for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the invalidity of the contested community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-483/12: Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v OHIM — Lotte (LOTTE)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/53

         Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v OHIM — Lotte (LOTTE)
   (Case T-483/12)
   2013/C 26/107
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2012 in case R 2103/2010-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Lotte Co. Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘LOTTE’ and an image of a koala on a tree, holding a smaller koala, for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application 6 158 463

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word elements ‘KOALA BÄREN’ and ‘KOALA’ and an image of a koala holding a smaller koala, for goods in Class 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal granted; decision of the Opposition Division annulled

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-638/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Eko-Tabak s.r.o. v Generální ředitelství cel

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Eko-Tabak s.r.o. v Generální ředitelství cel
   (Case C-638/15)
   (2016/C 098/23)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant (applicant at first instance): Eko-Tabak s.r.o.

      Other party to the proceedings (defendant at first instance): Generální ředitelství cel

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where dried, flat, irregular, partly stripped leaf tobacco and/or parts thereof which have undergone primary drying and controlled dampening and in which the presence of glycerine is detected are capable of being smoked after simple preparation (by means of crushing or hand-cutting), can they be regarded as manufactured tobacco within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c)(ii) or, as the case may be, Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (1) on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codification)?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Article 5, in conjunction with Article 2, of Council Directive 2011/64/EU on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codification) preclude national legislation of a Member State which extends excise duty on manufactured tobacco to tobacco that is not referred to in Articles 2 and 5 of Council Directive 2011/64/EU on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codification) and that, while not intended for smoking, can be smoked (is capable of and appropriate for being smoked) and has been prepared for sale to the final consumer?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24.


title: Case T-17/05: Action brought on 10 January 2005 by France Télécom against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/34

         Action brought on 10 January 2005 by France Télécom against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-17/05)
   (2005/C 82/63)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 2005 by France Télécom, having its principal place of business in Paris, represented by Antoine Gosset-Grainville and Laurent Godfroid, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Decision No C(2004)3061 adopted by the Commission on 2 August 2004 concerning State aid implemented by France in favour of France Télécom;

               2.

               the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant in the present case are identical to those which it put forward in Case T-427/04.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 October 1999 in Case C-104/97 P, Atlanta AG v European Community, represented by (1) Council of the European Union and (2) Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for damages — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import arrangements)

text:
C 20/4                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.1.2000
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   2. Dismisses the action for damages brought by Atlanta AG;
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                3. Upholds Points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of
                                                                               the Court of First Instance in Case T-521/93 Atlanta AC and
                         of 14 October 1999                                    Others v European Community;
in Case C-104/97 P, Atlanta AG v European Community,                       4. Orders Atlanta AG to pay the costs incurred in the appeal;
represented by (1) Council of the European Union and
      (2) Commission of the European Communities (1)                       5. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred in the
                                                                               appeal.
(Appeal — Action for damages — Common organisation of
       the markets — Bananas — Import arrangements)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                             (2000/C 20/06)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-104/97: — appeal by Atlanta AG, a company                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
incorporated under German law, established in Bremen, Ger-
many, represented by E.A. Undritz and G. Schohe, Rechtsan-
wälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                                        (Sixth Chamber)
the chambers of M. Baden, 34B Rue Philipppe II, against the
judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the Fourth
                                                                                of 14 October 1999
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-521/93 Atlanta AG
and Others v European Community [1996] ECR 11-1707,                        in Case C-229/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to              the Cour d’Appel, Brussels): Georges Vander Zwalmen,
the proceedings being: the European Community, represented                               Elisabeth Massart v Belgian State (1)
by (1) the Council of the European Union (Agent: J. Huber)
and (2) the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
K.-D. Borchardt); Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co.                 (Officials and other servants of the European Communities
GmbH, a company incorporated under German law, estab-                      — Personal income tax — Taxation of the spouse of a
lished in Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-Companie GmbH, a                                            Community official)
company incorporated under German law, established in
Hamburg (Germany), Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft                                                (2000/C 20/07)
mbH & Co. KG, a company incorporated under German
law, established in Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH, a
company incorporated under German law, established in
Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert                                     (Language of the case: French)
& Co., a company incorporated under German law, established
in Hamburg, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, a company incor-
porated under German law, established at Hamburg, the                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellinger and G. Mignot)                                   in the European Court Reports)
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de
Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber, acting               In Case C-229/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann,                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour d’Appel,
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate              Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            before that court between Georges Vander Zwalmen, Élisabeth
has given a judgment on 14 October 1999, in which it:                      Massart and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 13
                                                                           of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the
1. Sets aside the judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the            European Communities of 8 April 1965 — the Court (Sixth
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case           Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
     T-521/93 Atlanta AG and Others v European Community                   Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
     [1996] ECR II-1707, in so far as that court dismissed the             P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), and G. Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-
     action for damages brought by Atlanta AG without dealing with         Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
     the allegation that there had been an unlawful delegation of          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     legislative power to the Commission;                                  on 14 October 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-327/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/33

         Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)
   (Case T-327/16)
   (2016/C 287/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fratelli Polli, SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTICO CASALE’ — EU trade mark No 10 531 432

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2016 in Case R 1337/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-105/02: Action brought on 21 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
1.6.2002                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/5
notified in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation                    (2) by failing to inform the Commission of all other uncon-
No 1552/89. Should the Member State fail within that time-                      tested customs duties relating to TIR carnets not proces-
limit to fulfil its obligation to effect post-clearance recovery of             sed at German customs posts from 1994 until amend-
the duties and to determine the own resources, this may —                       ment of the decree adopted in 1996 by the Federal
depending on the length of the period exceeding the time-limit                  Ministry of Finance (Decree of 11 September 1996, III B
— lead to a delay in the transfer of the corresponding own                      1 — Z 0912 — 31/96), which received similar treatment
resources.                                                                      (entry in the ‘B’ accounts instead of the ‘A’ accounts);
                                                                          (3) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany is obliged
The German authorities did not comply with the time-limits                      forthwith to credit to the Commission the own resources
laid down by Article 49 of Regulation No 1214/92 and                            not transferred as a result of the infringements set forth
Article 379 of Regulation No 2454/93 and therefore deter-                       under 1(a) and (b) above;
mined own resources too late. Article 11 of Regulation
No 1552/89 is applicable to the extent that the late determi-             (4) declare that, with respect to any amounts already trans-
nation led to delays in the transfer of own resources. That                     ferred, the Federal Republic of Germany is obliged to
article imposes on the Member States an obligation to pay                       state the date on which each amount fell due, the amount
interest irrespective of the reason for the delay.                              owed and, where appropriate, the date of transfer;
                                                                          (5) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany is obliged,
( 1) OJ L 132 of 16.5.1992, p. 1.                                               pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 for the
( 2) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.                                              period up to 31 May 2000 and Article 11 of Regulation
( 3) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.                                              No 1150/2000 for the period after 31 May 2000, to pay
( 4) OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.                                                into the Community budget the interest accrued as a
( 5) OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.                                               result of the late transfer;
                                                                          (6) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 21 March 2002 by the Commission of                      The Commission concedes that, pursuant to Article 6 of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     Regulation No 1552/89, the entry of import duties in the
                             of Germany                                   ‘A’ accounts for own resources can only be required to the
                                                                          extent that the Member State concerned has been provided
                                                                          with security corresponding to cash payment. However, this
                          (Case C-105/02)                                 does not mean that such security must be ‘directly and
                                                                          immediately realisable’.
                          (2002/C 131/10)
                                                                          The German authorities dispute in a general — and thus
                                                                          unsubstantiated — manner — that, in the case of goods
                                                                          taxable at a high rate, the security of ECU 60 024 per TIR
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     carnet, which is provided in the same way for national import
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              duties and EU own resources, is sufficient to cover duty claims
ties on 21 March 2002 by the Commission of the European                   in the majority of cases. They also do not — and cannot —
Communities, represented by Günter Wilms, of its Legal                    dispute that, in all cases, the security in question is at least
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office          partially sufficient to cover the claims. Consequently, such
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre             security should, at least to this extent, have been entered in the
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                         ‘A’ accounts, provided that no other assessment is called for in
                                                                          view of the termination by the reinsurer, because, as a result
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               thereof — and as the German authorities claim — the risk
                                                                          cover existed ‘only on paper’. However, since, in principle, the
                                                                          point in time at which the TIR procedure begins and at which
declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                the corresponding security is provided is decisive, claims
comply with its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC,                arising before 1995 should in any event have been entered in
Euratom) No 1552/89 (1) of 29 May 1989 on the system of                   the ‘A’ accounts and transferred.
the Communities’ own resources, as replaced with effect from
31 May 2002 by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/                  If the German Government’s assertion that from 1995 the
2000 (2),                                                                 duties claims had to be regarded as unsecured on account of
                                                                          the termination by the reinsurer were correct, the German
(1) by failing properly to process certain transit documents              authorities should not have permitted the TIR procedure due
      (TIR carnets) and, as a result, to enter correctly and to           to the lack of security. If they nevertheless accepted the
      transfer to the Commission within the specified time-               procedure without security and therefore entered the claims in
      limit the own resources resulting from those documents;             the ‘B’ accounts, they must themselves bear the risk relating to
      and                                                                 collection of those claims. It must be assumed that there was
 ---pagebreak--- C 131/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           1.6.2002
at least partial security. The Federal Republic temporarily              The Commission claims that the Court should:
waived enforcement of its existing claims against the guarantor
association AIST only on the condition that the association              1.     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
continued to be liable with an appropriate own share and                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
assigned its claims against the reinsurer by way of security.                   Council Directive 97/43/Euratom (1) of 30 June 1997 on
Consequently, the claims arising in 1995 and the subsequent                     health protection of individuals against the dangers of
years were secured and should, to the extent that they had not                  ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and
been contested within the time-limit provided, have been                        repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, in the field of
entered, at least partly, in the ‘A’ accounts and transferred.                  medical exposure in the operation of radiological instal-
                                                                                lations, and in any event by failing to notify the Com-
                                                                                mission of them, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
The German authorities have not as yet supplied substantiated
proof for their submission that they acted vicariously in the
                                                                         2.     Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Community interest to prevent a collapse of the TIR system.
If, however, actual evidence of such a serious crisis existed, it
is difficult to see why the German authorities did not, in the
Community interest, consult the Commission and the other
Member States before reaching their decision temporarily to              Pleas in law and main arguments
waive collection of the claims. The unilateral action of the
German authorities is just as much an infringement of the
duty of co-operation laid down in Article 10 of the EC Treaty            It follows from the binding nature of directives under the third
as the fact that it was only in their response to the letter setting     paragraph of Article 161 EA and from the first paragraph of
the deadline that the German authorities complied with the               Article 192 EA that the Member States to which a directive is
Commission’s repeated request for notification of the details            addressed are obliged to transpose its provisions into national
of the agreement concluded by the Federal Republic with the              law in such a way that they become fully effective in practice
guarantor association and of further agreements with other               from the date of expiry of the period for transposition.
security providers.
                                                                         In accordance with Article 14 of the directive, the Member
                                                                         States were obliged to comply with it before 13 May 2000.
(1) OJ L 155 of 7.6. 1989, p. 1.                                         Although the Federal Republic of Germany has now largely
(2) OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.                                         transposed the directive by means of the Strahlenschutzverord-
                                                                         nung of 20 July 2001, the necessary provisions for the
                                                                         operation of radiological installations are still lacking.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.
Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany                                   Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
                         (Case C-106/02)
                                                                                (Case C-108/02)
                         (2002/C 131/11)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/12)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European                  ties on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser               Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
of the Commission of the European Communities, with an                   of the Commission of the European Communities, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.          Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-353/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014  — Italy v Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/43

         Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-353/14)
   2014/C 212/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/276/14 Administrators (AD 5) for drawing up a reserve list of 137 candidates to fill vacant posts for Administrators (AD 5), published in volume C 74 A of the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 March 2014;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised are those set out in Case T-275/13 Italy v Commission (OJ 2014 C 74 A, p. 4).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Case T-315/02: Svend Klitgaard v Commission of the European Communities (Arbitration clause — Contract concluded under the PLAN Cluster D programme — Travel expenses — Costs of recovery — Late payment)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 June 2004
   in Case T-315/02: Svend Klitgaard v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract concluded under the PLAN Cluster D programme - Travel expenses - Costs of recovery - Late payment)
   (2004/C 228/86)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case T-315/02: Svend Klitgaard, residing in Skørping (Denmark), represented by S. Koll Espensen, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and C. Giolito, assisted by P. Heidmann, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application under Article 238 EC for reimbursement of EUR 19 867.40 allegedly incurred by the applicant in connection with performance of contract No 32.0166 concluded within the framework of Cluster D of the Plant Life Assessment Network (PLAN) project, together with default interest, and for the payment of recovery costs, also with default interest — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.


title: Case C-429/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2010 by X Technology Swiss GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (SecondChamber) delivered on 15 June 2010 in Case T-547/08 X Technology Swiss GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/13

         Appeal brought on 2 September 2010 by X Technology Swiss GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (SecondChamber) delivered on 15 June 2010 in Case T-547/08 X Technology Swiss GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-429/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 301/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (represented by: A. Herbertz and R. Jung, Rechtsanwälte)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of [15] June 2010 in Case T-547/08 and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 — R 846/2008-4;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present case seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the General Court by which the appellant’s claim seeking annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 October 2008 concerning the rejection of its application for registration of a position mark consisting of the orange colouration of the toe area of a sock.
   The appellant submits that the General Court has wrongly and inappropriately interpreted the absolute ground for refusal of registration of trade marks in Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark. In the contested decision unlawfully raised conditions are placed on the requirement for distinctiveness.
   On an assessment of distinctiveness, it is not merely a question of the individual features of the mark, but also materially one of the overall impression of the mark in relation to the goods which it covers. That means that the distinctiveness of the trade mark applied for must be examined first as regards its different components, such as shape, position or colour, and second — which the General Court failed to do — as regards its overall impression in the light of the required distinctiveness. Within the framework of such an examination, regard must also fundamentally be had to the fact that a certain amount of distinctiveness is sufficient to enable a trade mark to be registered.
   The General Court unlawfully exaggerated the requirements for distinctiveness of the trade mark applied for, citing case-law on three-dimensional trade marks, which consist of the appearance of the goods themselves, and figurative marks, which consist of a two-dimensional presentation of the goods. That case-law is not applicable to the trade mark applied for, since the appellant’s trade mark is not a three-dimensional mark and there is no basis for comparison on which the case-law relating to the other marks can be applied to the mark applied for. Unlike the marks to which the cited case-law refers, the appellant’s trade mark concerns only a small part of the goods to be covered. A sign precisely delimited and clearly defined as to colour, which is small in relation to the goods to be covered, is not comparable to a mark which consists of the entire appearance of the goods themselves.
   Even if it is assumed that the case-law on three-dimensional trade marks is applicable to the trade mark applied for, the decision of the General Court remains erroneous in law. The appellant’s trade mark meets the conditions laid down in the case-law on three-dimensional marks. It departs significantly from the norm and from the customs of the sector and fulfils the essential function of indicating origin. The findings of the General Court on the degree of attention of the relevant public are not comprehensible: in the case of items which cannot be tried on before purchase, the consumer is particularly attentive and possesses particular brand awareness. Further, the General Court did not in any way sufficiently address the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding the use of a precisely defined hue. In so far as the General Court considers the identification of sports socks as widespread, it is not clear on what ground a colouration, which is always found in the same position and in the same hue with signal effect, is not an identification which is capable of registration.


title: Case C-334/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ACNO FOCUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark FOCUS — Refusal of registration — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Earlier mark registered for not less than five years)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH
   (Case C-334/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark ACNO FOCUS - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark FOCUS - Refusal of registration - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Earlier mark registered for not less than five years)
   2012/C 194/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (represented by: R. Schweizer and J. Berlinger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08 Lancôme v OHIM by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘ACNO FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007-1 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision refusing registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Meaning of genuine use of a trade mark

      Operative part of the order

   The Court (Fifth Chamber):

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-241/04: Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/30

         Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-241/04)
   (2004/C 217/54)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by by European Environmental Bureau, Brussels, Belgium and Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Partially annul Commission Decision 2004/247/EC (1) insofar as it concerns article 2 para 3 and article 3 sub b;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings;

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision the Commission decided not to amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Simazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by Member States. By refusing to include Simazine in Annex I the Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protection products containing this substance.
   The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June 2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk certain limited uses of products containing Simazine. In the preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transitional measures through the current absence of efficient alternatives and the need to allow time for their development.
   In support of their application the applicants invoke the pleas and arguments invoked by the same applicants in case T-236/04.

      (1)  OJ L 78 16.3.2004 p. 50.

      (2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.