title: Case T-104/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Germany v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/37

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-104/10)
   2010/C 134/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 and latterly by Commission Decision C(1999) 3557 of 15 November 1999 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the contested decision the Commission reduced the overall contribution granted from the ERDF in respect of the Community initiative RESIDER II SAARLAND (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany.
   The applicant relies on five pleas in law in support of its action.
   In its first plea the applicant submits that there is no legal basis for the consolidation and extrapolation of financial corrections in the programming period 1994 to 1999.
   Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) as the conditions for a reduction have not been met. It submits, in particular, in that regard that the Commission misconstrued the notion of ‘irregularity’. Furthermore, the Commission did not establish that the national authorities responsible for the administration of Structural Funds were in breach of their obligations under Article 23 of Regulation No 4253/88. There is insufficient definition, for an allegation of systematic irregularity, of the administrative and control systems to be submitted. The assumptions regarding systemic errors in relation to administration and control are, moreover, according to the applicant, based on erroneous findings of fact. The applicant also submits that important aspects of the factual background have been determined and assessed incorrectly.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits by its third plea in law that the reductions put forward in the contested decision are disproportionate. The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission failed to exercise its discretion under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88. Furthermore, the flat-rate corrections applied are in excess of the (potential) risk of loss to the Community budget. The applicant maintains that, over and above that, correction rates were cumulated without the outcome in individual cases being checked by reference to the principle of proportionality. The applicant also takes the view that the extrapolation of errors is disproportionate because specific errors cannot be applied to a heterogeneous whole.
   By its fourth plea the applicant submits that insufficient reasons were given for the contested decision. It submits in that regard that the derivation and grounds for the amount of the flat-rate reductions could not be deduced from the contested decision. In addition, there is nothing to indicate that the Commission sufficiently took into account the submission of the German authorities. Furthermore, the Commission failed to draw any conclusions from the weaknesses identified in the project assessments carried out by external assessors with regard to the conclusiveness of the findings.
   Lastly, the applicant puts forward a fifth plea in law alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of partnership because it now relies on the ‘datasheets on the eligibility of expenditure’ which were only compiled during the current programming period. Furthermore, the Commission bases the contested decision on systemic failings in the administrative and control system, even though it confirmed, in the course of the programming period, that the administrative and control systems were capable of functioning.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case T-139/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12September 2008 — Stephens v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Interlocutory judgment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12September 2008 — Stephens v Commission
   (Case T-139/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Interlocutory judgment - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 327/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kelvin William Stephens (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 April 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as it establishes his classification in step on recruitment as Grade A6, step 1, establishes 5 October 1995 as the date on which the decision takes financial effect and failed to reconstitute the applicant's career in grade and application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint; secondly, claim for compensation in respect of the alleged damage resulting from that decision
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Commission is ordered to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.


title: Case T-313/10: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Three-N-Products Private v OHIM — Shah (AYUURI NATURAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Three-N-Products Private v OHIM — Shah (AYUURI NATURAL)
   (Case T-313/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL - Earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 370/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Sheilesh Shah (Wembley, United Kingdom); and Akhil Shah (Wembley) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 June 2010 (case R 1005/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Three-N-Products Private Ltd and (ii) S. Shah, A. Shah and Mr M. Shah.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2010 (case R 1005/2009-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Three-N-Products Private Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Sheleish Shah and Akhil Shah to bear their own costs and the costs necessarily incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/30

         Removal from the Register of Case T-306/02 (1)

   (2004/C 284/59)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 7 September 2004, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-306/02, Renaud Denuit v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.


title: Case T-245/11: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — ClientEarth and International Chemical Secretariat v ECHA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by ECHA — Documents deriving from a third party — Time-limit for response to an application for access — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process — Overriding public interest — Environmental information — Emissions into the environment)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — ClientEarth and International Chemical Secretariat v ECHA
   (Case T-245/11) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by ECHA - Documents deriving from a third party - Time-limit for response to an application for access - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest - Environmental information - Emissions into the environment))
   (2015/C 371/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and The International Chemical Secretariat (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by D. Abrahams, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Manhaeve, P. Oliver and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve, P. Oliver and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, and latterly by E. Manhaeve, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Tomkim, acting as Agents); and European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. van Gerven and M. Bronckers, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the ECHA decision of 4 March 2011 refusing access to information supplied in the context of the procedure for registration of certain chemical substances.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 4 March 2011, in so far as it refused to disclose information requested by point 1 of the request for information, to the extent that point 1 concerns the names and contact details of 6  611 companies which were accessible over the Internet on 23 April 2014;

               2.

               Annuls the ECHA decision of 4 March 2011 in so far as it refused to disclose information requested by point 1 of the request for information, to the extent that point 1 concerns information not yet disclosed on 23 April 2014;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party, including the European Commission and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case T-76/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2011 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ‘FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI’ — Earlier Community figurative ‘markmundipharma’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2011 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)
   (Case T-76/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ‘FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI’ - Earlier Community figurative ‘markmundipharma’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 226/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg an der Lahn (Germany)) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (Alfafar, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2008 (Case R 825/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mundipharma GmbH and Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mundipharma GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-370/11: Action brought on 12 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/2

         Action brought on 12 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-370/11)
   2011/C 290/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               find that, by maintaining rules according to which the capital gains obtained on the buying back of shares of undertakings for collective investment which are not authorised in accordance with Directive 85/611/EEC (1) are not taxable, where those undertakings are established in Belgium, whereas the capital gains obtained on the buying back of shares of such undertakings established in Norway or Iceland are taxable, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission criticises the national provisions at issue in so far as they have the effect of deterring Belgian residents from investing in undertakings for collective investment established in Norway or Iceland, because capital gains obtained on the buying back of shares of those undertakings cannot benefit from the tax exemption applicable to capital gains obtained on the buying back of shares of undertakings for collective investment established in Belgium.
   The Commission claims that such a difference of treatment restricts the free movement of capital guaranteed by Article 40 of the EEA Agreement. Similarly, it hinders the freedom to provide services which amounts to an infringement of Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.
   In response to the objections raised by the Belgian authorities, the Commission states, first, that the distinction made by Belgian legislation within the category of undertakings for collective investment established in the European Union, that is, whether they are authorised or not in accordance with Directive 85/611/EEC, is not the subject of the present action. Second and third, the Commission rejects the arguments that the abovementioned measures are justified by reasons linked to the effectiveness of fiscal controls or the absence of measures for the exchange of information. In that context, the Commission notes that Belgium, Norway and Iceland have ratified the Convention on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters drafted under the auspices of the OECD and the Council of Europe and that the double taxation conventions concluded between Belgium, and Norway and Iceland respectively, provide for the exchange of information among those countries.

      (1)  Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3.


title: Case C-312/04: Action brought on 23 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/31

         Action brought on 23 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
   (Case C-312/04)
   (2004/C 228/64)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Günter Wilms and Alexander Weimar, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by

                           (a)

                           not consistently deploying the necessary activity in order to effect the timely determination of the rights of the Communities to their own resources during the period up to and including 1 January 1992 in a number of cases of suspected irregularities in relation to transports covered by TIR carnets,

                           (b)

                           determining too late the rights of the Communities to their own resources and thus making those resources available to the Commission too late, during the period from 1 January 1992 to the end of 1994 in a number of cases of suspected irregularities in relation to transports covered by TIR carnets, and

                           (c)

                           refusing to pay the attendant interest on arrears,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (1) of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom, on the system of the Communities' own resourses,

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   As a result of an inspection in 1997 in the Netherlands, the Commission found there to have been a delay in establishing own resources from customs duties. That delay related to uncleared TIR carnets registered in the period from 1991 to 1993 and in respect of which the requests for payment were sent out too late by the Netherlands authorities.
   Notwithstanding the fact that prior to 1992 there was no specific provision indicating the period of time after normal completion of the transaction within which the office of departure was required to act, it cannot be concluded that the Member States are not bound to act prior to establishment of the infringement and, in an appropriate case, prior to determination of the place where the infringement took place. The Netherlands authorities did not act with the care required in order to secure the financial interests of the Community. In the cases here referred to the requests for payment were issued after periods of time varying between 2 years and 4 1/2 months and 2 years and 10 months after registration of the carnets. In the Commission's view, such lengthy periods of time cannot be regarded as consistent with targeted activity.
   From 1 January 1992 the applicable Community provisions in the matter, in conjunction with Article 11 of the TIR agreement, provided for specific deadlines within which the Member States had to adopt the necessary measures. The Commission disagrees with the observations of the Netherlands authorities to the effect that the deadlines referred to are merely laid down in administrative provisions and not in legislative enactments and that it is in law not correct to embark on collection before the supplementary claim procedure has been completed.
   As the inspection carried out by the Commission has shown, the Netherlands embarked on collection on average one year after expiry of the (final) deadline of 15 months and, in doing so, was therefore too late in making own resources available to the Commission; on that account, the Netherlands are liable to interest on the arrears.

      (1)  OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.


               15.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/12

         Action brought on 2 March 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-4/16)
   (2016/C 338/14)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 March 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Clémence Perrin and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion delivered to the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article 31(2) of that Agreement, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 (EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway).

               2.

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses the Kingdom of Norway’s failure to comply, no later than 8 September 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 8 July 2015 regarding that State’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘SCA’) to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 (EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway).

               —

               Case E-13/13 concerned the Kingdom of Norway’s compliance with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (‘the AML Directive’).


title: Case T-47/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Germany v Commission (State aid — Renewable energy — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2012) — Aid supporting renewable electricity and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users — Decision declaring the aid partially incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — State resources)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-47/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Renewable energy - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2012) - Aid supporting renewable electricity and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users - Decision declaring the aid partially incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - State resources))
   (2016/C 222/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and K. Petersen, and subsequently by T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents, and by T. Lübbig, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case T-235/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Pari Pharma v EMA (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Prima facie case — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/42

         Order of the President of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Pari Pharma v EMA
   (Case T-235/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests))
   (2015/C 381/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, A. Rusanov and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, in essence, for the suspension of operation of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the EMA of 24 April 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to certain documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 24 April 2015 is suspended, in so far as that decision grants a third party access, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, to the assessment report (EMA/CHMP/702525/2014) concerning the similarity of Vantobra with Cayston and TOBI Podhaler and the assessment report (EMA/CHMP/778270/2014) concerning the clinical superiority of Vantobra over TOBI Podhaler.

               2.

               The EMA is ordered not to disclose the two reports mentioned in point 1.

               3.

               Novartis Europharm Ltd’s request for access to the full case file is rejected.

               4.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-48/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Schneider Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/42                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
The applicant also invokes the violation of several general                         Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/M.2283
principles of Community Law, such as the principles enshrined                       Schneider/Legrand);
in Articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on
Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto.
                                                                              —     annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of
                                                                                13 December 2002 whereby the Commission closed Case
The applicant finally invokes the illegality of Regulation 2580/                    COMP/M.2283 Schneider/Legrand;
2001. According to the applicant, the Council had no
competence to adopt this regulation. The applicant claims that
Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty are not sufficient                  —     order production of the market studies carried out in
nor do they explicitly authorise the Council to issue such a                        November 2002 in the context of Case COMP/M.2283;
regulation. In this respect, the applicant also invokes a violation
of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal
                                                                              —     order the Commission to produce, on the assumption
certainty and a misuse of power by the Council.
                                                                                that they exist, the minutes of the meeting of the
                                                                                Commission at which the decision to close the case was
                                                                                adopted and the decision delegating a power of signature
( 1) 2002/848/EC: Council Decision of 28 October 2002                               to the Director-General for Competition and authorising
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
                                                                                him to sign the decision closing the case;
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/460/EC (OJ L 295, p. 12).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001                 —     order the Commission to reimburse the costs incurred in
     on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons              connection with the present actions.
     and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344, p. 7).
( 3) 2002/974/EC: Council Decision of 12 December 2002
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/848/EC (OJ L 337, p. 85).
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              On 10 October 2001, the Commission adopted a decision
                                                                              declaring Schneider’s public exchange offer in respect of all the
                                                                              shares in Legrand held by the public to be incompatible with
                                                                              the common market (1). As Schneider had closed its public
                                                                              offer before that decision was taken, the Commission adopted
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Schneider                               a further decision of 30 January 2002 ordering Schneider to
Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Com-                         divest itself of Legrand. The applicant challenged both these
                                munities                                      decisions in Cases T-301/01 and T-77/02. The Court of First
                                                                              Instance annulled the decisions by judgment of 22 October
                             (Case T-48/03)                                   2002.
                            (2003/C 101/76)
                                                                              On 4 December 2002, the Commission adopted a decision to
                                                                              initiate proceedings, after declaring that the concentration
                       (Language of the case: French)                         raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common
                                                                              market and opened the second phase investigation. The
                                                                              applicant subsequently informed the Commission that as it
                                                                              had divested itself of Legrand, on 10 December, the proceed-
                                                                              ings had become devoid of purpose. On 13 December 2002,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              the Commission closed the file (2).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Schneider
Electric S.A., whose registered office is at Rueil-Malmaison
(France), represented by Antoine Winckler and Marc Pittie,
lawyers.                                                                      In the present case, the applicant challenges the Commission
                                                                              decisions of 4 and 13 December 2002. The applicant states
                                                                              that the true effect of the decisions is to prohibit irremediably
                                                                              the union between Schneider and Legrand. In light of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   obligation to implement the divestiture decision in good faith
                                                                              and the fact that it was impossible to secure provision by
—      annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of                 financial investors of the amounts necessary for an additional
       4 December 2002 based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council                    period in excess of four months, the deadline for disposing of
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/43
Legrand was set at 5 December 2002. According to the                     rejected those measures by making its assessment subordinate
applicant, these economic consequences and the obligation to             to that of a national court and by waiving its exclusive power
comply in good faith with the judgments of the Court of First            to control concentrations of a Community dimension.
Instance meant that the Commission was required to pay
particular attention when resuming the investigation of the
case.
                                                                         The applicant also claims that the Commission made a
                                                                         manifest error of assessment in considering that the corrective
                                                                         measures proposed were insufficient in the light of the
                                                                         allegedly inadequate industrial viability of the undertakings
In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that the
                                                                         disposed of. In addition, it claims that the Commission
Commission did give effect to the judgment of the Court of
                                                                         infringed the principle of proportionality by refusing to take
First Instance in Case T-310/01. The applicant states that the
                                                                         into account the potential acquirers of the shares disposed
Commission resumed the proceedings at ‘stage I’, whereas the
                                                                         of and an alternative proposal to dispose of a significant
Court of First Instance had held that its examination should be
                                                                         shareholding. Last, the applicant claims that the Commission
recommenced at the stage at which the Commission had
                                                                         infringed Regulation No 4064/89 by refusing to analyse the
committed its procedural error, i.e. at the time of communicat-
                                                                         applicant’s undertakings as to conduct.
ing the statement of objections.
                                                                         Last, the applicant claims that the decision to close the
Second, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of             proceedings is vitiated by an error of law, since it has no legal
its rights of defence. It maintains that the Commission did not          basis in Regulation No 4064/89 or in any other principle of
communicate the objections which it intended to use against              law. In that regard, the applicant also relies on an infringement
it within the prescribed period and with the clarity which               of the principle of collegiality of the Commission.
would give it the proper opportunity to submit corrective
measures. The applicant further states that the Commission
refused to grant any access to the results of the market studies
                                                                         (1 ) Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand.
which it carried out for the purpose of evaluating the scope of          (2 ) Initiation of proceedings and abandonment of the planned
the corrective measures proposed by the applicant.                            concentration (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) (Text
                                                                              with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 C 29, p. 5).
                                                                         (3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89/EEC of 21 December 1989
                                                                              on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989
Third, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement               L 395, p. 1).
of the principle of good administration, in that the Commission
distorted the corrective measures in the questionnaire drawn
up for the purpose of the market studies and did not take into
account certain factual matters which qualified the results.
Fourth, the applicant relies on a number of errors of law and
of manifest errors of assessment. The applicant claims that the
Commission ignored the consequences of its decisions by
                                                                         Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Gunda Schumann
stating that serious doubts still existed concerning the compati-
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
bility of the operation with the common market. According to
the applicant, the Commission therefore failed, contrary to the
second paragraph of Regulation No 4064/89 (3) and to the
judgment of the Court of First Instance, to adopt a definitive                                      (Case T-49/03)
position. Furthermore, the Commission is also alleged to have
applied a stricter standard of proof to the facts in issue than
that laid down in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 4064/89.                                           (2003/C 101/77)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant further claims that the Commission at no time
approached the level of proof required to demonstrate the
effects of a conglomerate of this type.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Last, the applicant states that the Commission made errors of            European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Gunda
law and errors of assessment when analysing the corrective               Schumann, resident in Berlin, represented by I. Bock, lawyer,
measures proposed by the applicant. Thus, the Commission                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-503/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Al-Aqsa v Council

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/38

         Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Al-Aqsa v Council
   (Case T-503/11)
   2011/C 347/69
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Heerlen, Netherlands) (represented by: A. van Eik, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation 687/2011 in so far as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               declare that Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 does not apply to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Implementing Regulation 687/2011, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant, is contrary to the sound administration of justice and procedural economy, on account of the appeals still pending before the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 and on account of the decision of 18 April 2011 of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme (Netherlands regulation on sanctions for the suppression of terrorism) 2007-II applies to the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fall within the scope of the Common Position. (2)

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that no competent authority has taken a decision as referred to in Article 1(4) of the Common Position. Neither the judgment of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003, nor the decision of 18 April 2011, by which the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II is deemed to apply to the applicant, can be regarded as a decision by a competent authority.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, there is no indication that it had the knowledge required by Article 1(3)(k) of the Common Position.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant could not be considered to (still) be facilitating the commission of terrorist acts, since that cannot be inferred either from the order of the judge hearing an application for interim measures of 3 June 2003 or from the decision of 18 April 2011 by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs to consider that the Sanctieregeling Terrorisme 2007-II applies to the applicant.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and excessive use of discretion. The Council wrongly failed to carry out a review and failed to discharge the burden of proof on it in respect of a reinstatement decision.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the Implementing Regulation constitutes a disproportionate interference in the right to respect for property.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, based on the right to an effective remedy and the principle of the rights of the defence, since the Council failed to provide specific and concrete information as to why maintenance on the list is necessary.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2).

      (2)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).


title: Case T-583/15: Action brought on 5 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/33

         Action brought on 5 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)
   (Case T-583/15)
   (2015/C 414/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a peace symbol) — Application for registration No 11 363 611

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2015 in Case R 2788/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               remit the Applicant’s case back to the Second Board of Appeal for a decision on the substance of the Restitutio Application in relation to the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay their own costs and those of the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 58, 65(5), 75, 81(1) and 81(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 65 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-317/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Köln — Germany) — G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG v Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Directive 89/105/EEC — Article 6(1) and (2) — Positive list — Obligation to state reasons and provide information concerning remedies)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Köln — Germany) — G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG v Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss
   (Case C-317/05) (1)

   (Directive 89/105/EEC - Article 6(1) and (2) - Positive list - Obligation to state reasons and provide information concerning remedies)
   (2006/C 326/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss

      Intervening parties: AOK-Bundesverband KdöR, IKK-Bundesverband, Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (BKK), Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen eV, AEV-Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband eV, Bundesknappschaft, Seekrankenkasse, Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) — Concept of ‘positive list’ — National rules providing for the establishment of a list of medicinal products, normally available without a prescription and non-refundable, which may exceptionally be covered by the national health insurance system in cases where they represent standard treatment for certain serious ailments — Obligation to take a decision concerning inclusion on the list within a specified period, to set out reasons for refusal and to inform the applicant of the means of redress available to him
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is to be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State which, following the exclusion of non-prescription medicinal products from the range of benefits provided by the national health system, empower an authority under that system to adopt rules derogating from that exclusion in respect of certain medicines without making provision for a procedure under Article 6(1) and (2) of that directive.

               2.

               Article 6(2) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it confers on the manufacturers of medicinal products affected by a decision which allows the coverage by the health insurance system of certain medicinal products containing active ingredients referred to therein the right to a reasoned decision mentioning remedies, even though the rules of the Member State make no provision for any corresponding procedure or remedies.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-325/05: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — TUI v OHIM

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2007 — TUI v OHIM
   (Case T-325/05) (1)

   (2007/C 96/79)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case C-312/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Huy — Belgium) — Agim Ajdini v Belgian State (Rules of Procedure — Articles 53(2), 93(a) and 99 — Request for a preliminary ruling — Examination of the conformity of a national provision with both European Union law and the national constitution — National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Failure to implement European Union law — Clear absence of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/12

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Huy — Belgium) — Agim Ajdini v Belgian State
   (Case C-312/12) (1)

   (Rules of Procedure - Articles 53(2), 93(a) and 99 - Request for a preliminary ruling - Examination of the conformity of a national provision with both European Union law and the national constitution - National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Failure to implement European Union law - Clear absence of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 108/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Labour Court, Huy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agim Ajdini

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Labour Court, Huy — Interpretation of Articles 20, 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 234 EC — Fundamental rights — Principle of non-discrimination — Serbian national with a disability — Admissibility of national legislation excluding certain persons from entitlement to disability benefits on grounds of nationality — National of a third country which is an official candidate for accession to the European Union — Power of a national court to refer a matter to the Court of Justice — Admissibility of national legislation requiring the national court to bring a matter to the Constitutional Court at the outset

      Operative part of the order

   It is clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court, Huy (Belgium).

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-381/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division)): Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc. (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agent carrying on his activity in a Member State — Principal established in a non-member country — Clause submitting the agency contract to the law of the country of establishment of the principal)

text:
C 28/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.1.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 9 November 2000                                                          of 9 November 2000
in Case C-381/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       in Case C-387/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                       the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Coreck Maritime GmbH
Division)): Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies                                     v Handelsveem BV and Others (1)
                                Inc. (1)
                                                                           (Brussels Convention — Article 17 — Clause conferring
(Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agent                               jurisdiction — Formal conditions — Effects)
carrying on his activity in a Member State — Principal
established in a non-member country — Clause submitting
the agency contract to the law of the country of establishment
                                                                                (2001/C 28/07)
                          of the principal)
                           (2001/C 28/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-381/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal
of England and Wales (Civil Division), United Kingdom, for a               In Case C-387/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
court between Ingmar GB Ltd and Eaton Leonard Technologies                 der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a
Inc. — on the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the                 court between Coreck Maritime GmbH and Handelsveem BV
Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents                  and Others — on the interpretation of the first paragraph of
(OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                        Article 17 of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber,                  1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention
acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and                of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                  Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                  and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and — amended
judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                        text — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                           Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
                                                                           by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989
Articles 17 and 18 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 Decem-            L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
ber 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States              D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
relating to self-employed commercial agents, which guarantee certain       P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
rights to commercial agents after termination of agency contracts,         General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
must be applied where the commercial agent carried on his activity in      has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it has
a Member State although the principal is established in a non-             ruled:
member country and a clause of the contract stipulates that the
contract is to be governed by the law of that country.
                                                                           The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September
                                                                           1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                                                                           Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
                                                                           United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
                                                                           Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                           Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession
                                                                           of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be
                                                                           interpreted as follows:


               17.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 40/14

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Frostating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 23 April 2004 in the case of Fokus Bank ASA v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet
   (Case E-1/04)
   (2005/C 40/07)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 23 April 2004 of Frostating lagmannsrett (Frostating Court of Appeal), Trondheim, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 April 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fokus Bank ASA v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it consistent with Article 40 of the EEA Agreement that imputation tax credit for withholding tax is not granted to taxpayers resident in other member states?

                           (a)

                           Is it of legal significance whether the taxpayer is resident in a member state which, in a tax agreement with Norway, has undertaken to grant credit for withholding tax?

                           (b)

                           Is it of legal significance whether the taxpayer in the specific case actually is granted, or will be granted, credit for the withholding tax?

               2.

               Is it consistent with the EEA Agreement that a member state deals solely with the distributing company when assessing and reassessing dividend tax (withholding tax) in those cases where the assessment decision for the foreign taxpayers is based on the assumption that the owner for tax purposes is someone other than the person who (1) is the owner under private law; (2) is registered in the VPS register as owner; and (3) is stated as owner in relation to the tax authorities, without either the owner for tax purposes or the VPS-registered owner under private law having been made aware of the reclassification?


title: Case C-101/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the proceedings Skatteverket v A

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the proceedings Skatteverket v A
   (Case C-101/05)
   (2005/C 106/36)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 15 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Skatteverket (Tax Board) and A on the following question:

               1.

               In a situation like the present case, is it contrary to the provisions on free movement of capital between Member States and third countries to tax A in respect of the distribution from X because X is not established in a State within the EEA or in a State with which Sweden has a taxation convention that contains a provision on exchange of information?


title: Case T-221/12: Action brought on 25 May 2012 — Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/26

         Action brought on 25 May 2012 — Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH)
   (Case T-221/12)
   2012/C 217/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Sunrider Corp. (United States) (represented by: N. Dontas and E. Markakis, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG (Anthering bei Salzburg, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2012 in case R 2401/2010-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings before the General Court; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant in the course of the underlying proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SUN FRESH’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 6171433

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 605014 of the word mark ‘SUNNY FRESH’, for goods in class 5; UK trade mark registration No 2016689 for the figurative mark in black and white ‘SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH’, for goods in class 32; Irish trade mark registration No 169766 for the figurative mark in black and white ‘SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH’, for goods in class 32; Hungarian trade mark registration No 144500 for the word mark ‘SUNNYFRESH’, for goods in class 5; Benelux trade mark registration No 574389 for the figurative mark in black and white ‘SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH’, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 second sentence and Article 76(1) second sentence of Council Regulation No 207/2009

               —

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


title: Case T-91/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — LG Electronics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture — Equal treatment — Method of calculating the fine — Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products — Limitation period — Proportionality — Duration of the administrative procedure)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — LG Electronics v Commission
   (Case T-91/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture - Equal treatment - Method of calculating the fine - Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products - Limitation period - Proportionality - Duration of the administrative procedure))
   (2015/C 346/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) and for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case T-645/16: Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/55

         Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
   (Case T-645/16)
   (2016/C 402/65)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board, apparently of 15 April 2016, at least in so far as that decision concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision.


title: Case C-404/04 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2004 by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-198/01 between Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Schott Glas

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/23

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2004 by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-198/01 between Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Schott Glas
   (Case C-404/04 P)
   (2004/C 273/44)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-198/01 between Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Schott Glas, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, represented by Christoph Arhold and Norbert Wimmer, Rechtsanwälte, White & Case LLP, 62 rue de la Loi, B-1040 Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-198/01; (1)

               2.

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 June 2001;

               3.

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               4.

               Order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments:

               1.

               The appellant contests the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-198/01 dismissing the application for annulment of the Commission's decision classifying as aid the reduction by DEM 4 000 000 of the purchase price of an undertaking privatised by the Treuhandanstalt (subsequently BvS) and requiring it to be recovered.

               2.

               The appellant, both in the procedure for the examination of aid and in the procedure before the Court of First Instance, put forward the view that it had been entitled to the reduction of the purchase price on the ground that the basis of the transaction had ceased to exist, since it and the vendor — the Treuhandanstalt — had both presumed when fixing the purchase price that the Freistaat Thüringen (Land of Thuringia) would support the appellant's investment in the privatised undertaking from GA funds (a general regional aid scheme approved by the Commission) at a higher rate (permissible for small and medium-sized undertakings). That support had been the basis of the calculation. Since only normal, not higher-rate support had been granted, the basis of calculation had ceased to exist to that extent, and the purchase price should have been adjusted accordingly. Since there had been a general civil-law claim to adjustment of the purchase price, which any private seller would also have been subject to, there could have been no question of aid (no economic advantage and no selectivity within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC). That was also the case because under the Treuhand system in force at the time of privatisation the fixing of a correspondingly lower purchase price would have been permissible without any problems as regards aid law.

               3.

               The Commission rejected the appellant's argument on legal grounds and took the view that claims against the Treuhand and the Freistaat Thüringen were to be investigated separately. The Court of First Instance approved that reasoning, and furthermore pointed out that the applicant had not produced in the judicial proceedings any written evidence that the Freistaat Thüringen had agreed to provide support.

               4.

               The appeal is directed against this. In connection with the ceasing to exist of the basis of the transaction, the appellant puts forward in particular the following grounds of appeal:

                           —

                           The Court of First Instance wrongly found that the Commission had not infringed the duty to state reasons (Article 253 EC), since it was not possible, on the basis of the Commission's reasoning, to ascertain why the Commission had rejected the applicant's stated claim against the Treuhand (now BvS) on the ground of the ceasing to exist of the basis of the transaction.

                           —

                           If the Commission's reasoning satisfied the requirements of Article 253 EC, the Court of First Instance should in any case have found a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission, since the Commission's reasoning was manifestly incapable of casting doubt on the appellant's submissions on the ceasing to exist of the basis of the transaction. A breach of Article 87(1) EC by the Commission should accordingly have been found by the Court of First Instance.

                           —

                           In so far as the Court of First Instance relied on additional reasons not adduced by the Commission (no evidence of a promise by the Freistaat Thüringen), these were inadmissible (substitution of reasoning) and irrelevant (it was not the promise by Thüringen that was evidentially relevant but the mistake of the contracting parties as to the amount of support).

                           —

                           Moreover, the Court of First Instance infringed essential procedural rules, inter alia the right to be heard, by rejecting in its judgment the appellant's applications for evidence to be taken as regards the basis of calculation, and at the same time basing the judgment on the fact that the appellant had not proved its submissions.

               5.

               In addition to the above grounds of appeal, the appellant also complains of errors of law in relation to other defects in the reasoning of the Commission's decision and error of law in finding that the Commission had not committed significant procedural errors.

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.


title: Case C-671/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — in the proceedings brought by ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC — Deposit-guarantee schemes and investor-compensation schemes — Savings and investment instruments — Financial instrument within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC — Exclusion of the guarantee — Direct effect — Conditions to be met in order to benefit from Directive 97/9/EC)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — in the proceedings brought by ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas
   (Case C-671/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC - Deposit-guarantee schemes and investor-compensation schemes - Savings and investment instruments - Financial instrument within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC - Exclusion of the guarantee - Direct effect - Conditions to be met in order to benefit from Directive 97/9/EC))
   (2015/C 279/11)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

   ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ VĮ, Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas

      Other interested parties: Vitoldas Guliavičius, bankas ‘Snoras’ AB, in liquidation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, as amended by Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009, and point 12 of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may exclude from the guarantee provided for by that directive certificates of deposit issued by a credit institution if those certificates are negotiable, a matter which it falls to the referring court to determine, there being no need for it to satisfy itself that those certificates have all the characteristics of a financial instrument within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC.

               2.

               Directive 94/19, as amended by Directive 2009/14, and Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes must be interpreted as meaning that when claims against a credit institution are such as to be encompassed by both the concept of ‘deposit’ within the meaning of Directive 94/19 and that of ‘instrument’ within the meaning of Directive 97/9, and the national legislature has made use of the option provided for in point 12 of Annex I to Directive 94/19 to exclude those claims from the protection scheme provided for by Directive 94/19, such an exclusion cannot result in those claims also being excluded from the protection scheme provided for by Directive 97/9, other than under the conditions mentioned in Article 4(2) of that directive.

               3.

               Articles 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes entitlement to compensation under the scheme provided for by that directive conditional upon the credit institution concerned having transferred or used the funds or securities in question without the investor’s consent.

               4.

               Directive 97/9 must be interpreted as meaning that the referring court, provided that it considers that in the disputes before it Directive 97/9 is invoked against a body that meets the conditions for the provisions of that directive to be relied on, is required to refrain from applying a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes entitlement to compensation under the scheme provided for by that directive conditional upon the credit institution concerned having transferred or used the funds or securities in question without the investor’s consent.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


C 118/44              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.4.2001
       Removal from the Register of Case T-40/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-155/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/119)                                                          (2001/C 118/121)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 28 November 2000, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-40/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
mission of the European Communities.                                      Case T-155/00, Acheme v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-107/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-196/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/120)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/122)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second                                    (Language of the case: French)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 11 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
Case T-107/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
mission of the European Communities.                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-196/00, Luc Verheyden v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                 Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case F-43/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2007 — Tuomo Talvela v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Assessment — Career Development Report — 2004 reporting period — Rights of the defence — Duty to state reasons in the report — Administrative investigation)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/68

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2007 — Tuomo Talvela v Commission
   (Case F-43/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Assessment - Career Development Report - 2004 reporting period - Rights of the defence - Duty to state reasons in the report - Administrative investigation)
   (2007/C 269/123)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Tuomo Talvela (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — First, annulment of the appellant's career development report for the year 2004 and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.6, p. 38.


title: Case C-244/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on  31 May 2006  — Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2006 — Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG
   (Case C-244/06)
   (2006/C 178/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Koblenz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH

      Defendant: Avides Media AG
   Question referred
   Does the principle of the free movement of goods within the meaning of Article 28 EC preclude a provision of German law prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media (DVDs, videos) that are not labelled as having been examined in Germany as to their availability to young persons?
   In particular:
   Does the prohibition of mail order sales of such image storage media constitute a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28 EC?
   If so:
   Is such a prohibition justified under Article 30 EC, having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC, (1) even if the image storage medium has been examined as to its availability to young persons by another Member State of the EU and is labelled accordingly, or does such a check by another Member State of the EU constitute a less severe means for the purposes of that provision?

      (1)  OJ L 178, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-102/07 and T-120/07: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Germany in the form of a participation and loan guarantees — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market — General aid scheme approved by the Commission — Concept of a firm in difficulty — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Amount of aid — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-102/07 and T-120/07) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by Germany in the form of a participation and loan guarantees - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - General aid scheme approved by the Commission - Concept of a firm in difficulty - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Amount of aid - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2010/C 100/57
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers) (Case T-102/07), MB Immobilien Verwaltungs GmbH (Neukirch, Germany) (represented initially by: G. Brüggen, and subsequently by A. Seidl, K. Lengert and W. Sommer, lawyers) and MB System GmbH & Co. KG, (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer) (Case T-120/07)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/492/EC of 24 January 2007 on the State aid C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) implemented by Germany for the Biria Group (OJ 2007 L 183, p. 27)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2007/492/EC of 24 January 2007 on the State aid C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) implemented by Germany for the Biria Group.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-120/07.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-492/04: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH v Finanzamt Emmendingen (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Free movement of capital — Freedom of establishment — Taxation — Corporation tax — Loan agreement between companies — Resident borrowing company — Shareholder lending company established in a non-member country — Meaning of substantial holding — Payment of loan interest — Classification — Covert distribution of profits)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH v Finanzamt Emmendingen
   (Case C-492/04) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Free movement of capital - Freedom of establishment - Taxation - Corporation tax - Loan agreement between companies - Resident borrowing company - Shareholder lending company established in a non-member country - Meaning of ‘substantial holding’ - Payment of loan interest - Classification - Covert distribution of profits)
   (2007/C 155/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
   Parties

      Applicant: Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Emmendingen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Articles 56(1) EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC — National tax legislation — Tax on profits of companies — Taxation as a covert distribution of profits of the interest paid by a national company on loan capital from a shareholder company established in a non-member country
   Operative part of the order
   A national measure in accordance with which the loan interest paid by a resident capital company to a non-resident shareholder who has a substantial holding in the capital of that company is, under certain conditions, regarded as a covert distribution of profits, taxable in the hands of the resident borrowing company, primarily affects freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC et seq. Those provisions cannot be relied on in a situation involving a company in a non-member country.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Case T-229/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Yorma Eberl — Earlier Community and national word marks NORMA — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)
   (Case T-229/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Yorma Eberl - Earlier Community and national word marks NORMA - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß and C. Muck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2014 (Case R 532/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.