title: Case T-713/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Pharm-a-care Laboratories v OHIM — Pharmavite (VITAMELTS)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/73

         Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Pharm-a-care Laboratories v OHIM — Pharmavite (VITAMELTS)
   (Case T-713/15)
   (2016/C 038/99)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pharm-a-care Laboratories Pty. Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharmavite LLC (California, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VITAMELTS’ — Community trade mark No 11 403 581

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2015 in Case R 2649/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division in its entirety so that Application for Revocation No. 8627 C is rejected;

               —

               order OHIM and Pharmavite LLC to pay the Appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal infringed Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. It erred in law in finding that the Appellant has acted in bad faith when filing the application for registration of the contested trade mark;

               —

               The Board of Appeal’s decision is based, in part, on an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, namely the failure to provide the Appellant with an opportunity to respond to evidence submitted by the Cancellation Applicant.


title: Case C-405/04 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2004 by Nippon Steel Corp. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/10

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2004 by Nippon Steel Corp. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-405/04 P)
   (2004/C 284/20)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 between JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2004 by Nippon Steel Corp., established in Tokyo, Japan, represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 8 July 2004 in joined cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering Corp., Nippon Steel Corp., JFE Steel Corp. and Sumimoto Metal Industries Ltd v Commission in so far as it concerns Nippon Steel Corporation;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes) in so far as it concerns Nippon Steel Corporation; or

               —

               in the alternative, if the Appellant is successful in its appeal only in so far as it concerns project line pipe, reduce the fine imposed on Nippon Steel Corporation by two-thirds; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear all the costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

               (a)

               the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong standard of proof in a case where the Appellant has demonstrated that the Commission's allegation is incompatible with the Appellant's commercial interest and therefore irrational;

               (b)

               the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong standard of proof in a case where the documentary evidence is ambiguous and the Appellant has offered a plausible alternative explanation of the conduct at issue;

               (c)

               the Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wrong legal standard of proof as to the level of corroboration required in support of contested statements which the Commission uses as principal evidence but which are implausible, highly ambiguous and contradicted by other evidence;

               (d)

               the Court of First Instance erred in law by giving contradictory and inadequate reasons in concluding that the statement of Mr Becher (an employee of Mannesmann) of 21 April 1997 could corroborate the statements of Mr Verluca, Head of Vallourec Oil & Gas, regarding the alleged infringement in respect of project line pipe.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 1998 in Case C-186/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt Trier (Milk - Additional levy scheme - Additional reference quantity - Temporary withdrawal - Conversion into a definitive reduction - Loss of compensation - General principles of law and fundamental rights)

text:
C 48/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.1999
so far as that provision requires milk deliveries actually to                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
be resumed before 29 March 1990.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( ) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
 1
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
                                                                            in Case C-353/96: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Public
                                                                     supply contracts Ð Review procedures Ð Definition of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      contracting authority)
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/08)
                    of 17 December 1998
in Case C-186/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt
                            Trier (1)                                                 (Language of the case: English)
(Milk Ð Additional levy scheme Ð Additional reference
quantity Ð Temporary withdrawal Ð Conversion into a
definitive reduction Ð Loss of compensation Ð General
          principles of law and fundamental rights)                  In Case C-353/96: Commission of the European
                        (1999/C 48/07)                               Communities (Agent: Richard Wainwright) v. Ireland
                                                                     (Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by Eoghan
                                                                     Fitzsimons and Feargal ÓDubhghaill) Ð application for a
               (Language of the case: German)                        declaration that, by failing to comply with the provisions
                                                                     of Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
                                                                     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       contracts (OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1), as amended by
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Directive 88/295/EEC (OJ L 127, 20.5.1988, p. 1), and in
                                                                     particular by failing to publish its invitation to tender for
                                                                     the supply of fertiliser on behalf of Coillte Teoranta (The
In Case C-186/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           Irish Forestry Board Limited) in the Official Journal of the
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany for               European Communities, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
that court between Stefan Demand and Hauptzollamt                    Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Trier Ð on the validity of the first paragraph of Article 3          Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
and Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92              Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber,
of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in               Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
the milk and milk products sector (OJ L 405, 31.12.1992,             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G.                   17 December 1998, in which it:
Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
                                                                     1. Declares that, since Coillte Teoranta failed to have a
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          notice of tender for a contract for the supply of
judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          fertiliser published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                          European Communities, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
Consideration of the general principles of Community law,                 obligations under Council Directive 77/62/EEC of
and in particular the principles of the protection of                     21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the
legitimate expectations and of the fundamental right to                   award of public supply contracts, as amended by
property, has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to                    Directive 88/295/EEC.
affect the validity of the first paragraph of Article 3 and
Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the
milk and milk products sector in so far as they converted,           2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
without compensation, temporary suspension of a
percentage of the additional reference quantity granted in
return for payment into a definitive reduction.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.


title: Case C-244/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Scheme under which prior authorisation is required for the acquisition of voting rights representing 20 % or more of the share capital in certain ‘strategic public limited companies’ — Arrangements for ex post control of certain decisions taken by those companies)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-244/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Scheme under which prior authorisation is required for the acquisition of voting rights representing 20 % or more of the share capital in certain ‘strategic public limited companies’ - Arrangements for ex post control of certain decisions taken by those companies)
   2013/C 9/22
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Zavvos, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — National legislation under which prior approval is required for the acquisition of voting rights corresponding to 20 % or more of the total share capital in companies of national strategic importance — Breach of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by laying down the requirements referred to in Article 11(1), read in conjunction with Article 11(2), and those referred to in Article 11(3) of Law 3631/2008 on the creation of a national fund for social cohesion, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC on the freedom of establishment;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.07.2011.


C 323/42               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.12.2002
        Removal from the register of Case T-149/01 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-150/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 323/69)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/70)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                By order of 27 September 2002 the President of the Fourth
T-149/01: Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav Andersson v Office                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (Trade Marks                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
and Designs) (OHIM).                                                     T-150/01: Cristiano Sebastiani v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


C 83/16                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            le Strade v SCA RL CMC Cooperativa Muratori Cementisti
                                                                           Ravenna, SpA ICLA Costruzioni Generali and SpA Impresa
                                                                           Toto e Toto.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 28 October 2001.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
( 1) OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-337/00 ( 1)
Action brought on 21 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                                              (2003/C 83/32)
                             Netherlands
                           (Case C-80/03)
                                                                           By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           (2003/C 83/30)
                                                                           from the register of Case C-337/00: Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
21 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                       Removal from the register of Case C-188/01 ( 1)
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 1999/93/EC ( 1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on                                          (2003/C 83/33)
      a Community framework for electronic signatures, or in
      any event by failing to inform the Commission of those
      provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-188/01 (Reference for a preliminary
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenats Salzburg):
                                                                           Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
The period within which the measures had to be adopted
expired on 19 July 2001.
( 1) OJ L 13 of 19.1.2000, p. 12.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-375/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/34)
        Removal from the register of Case C-173/00 ( 1)
                                                                           By order of 15 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                           (2003/C 83/31)                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-375/01: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Ireland.
By order of 14 January 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                    (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
from the register of Case C-173/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS — Ente Nazionale per


title: Case C-117/08: Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-117/08) (1)

   (2008/C 301/45)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case F-39/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2009 — Campos Valls v Council (Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Appointment — Post of Head of Unit — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Conditions required for the notice of vacancy — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2009 — Campos Valls v Council
   (Case F-39/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Appointment - Post of Head of Unit - Rejection of the applicant’s candidature - Conditions required for the notice of vacancy - Manifest error of assessment)
   2009/C 193/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Manuel Campos Valls (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority to reject the applicant’s candidature for the post of head of the Spanish Language Unit of DG A, Directorate 3 — Translation and Document Production — Language Service, referred to in Staff Note CP46/06 and, second, of the decision to appoint another candidate to that post.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 28.


title: Case T-885/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Mass Response Service v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/54

         Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Mass Response Service v Commission
   (Case T-885/16)
   (2017/C 038/70)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mass Response Service GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the measures of the Commission through the merger control unit of the Directorate General for competition in the course of the implementation of the third requirement (‘non-MNO remedy’) of Decision M.7018, in particular its view expressed in the emails of 24 October 2016 and of 29 October 2016 that the non-MNO remedy is limited to pure service providers, excluding MVNOs (mobile virtual network operators) such as the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Decision C(2014) 4443 final in Case M.7018;

               —

               order the Commission 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 which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-884/16, Multiconnect v Commission.


title: Case T-242/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Stavytskyi v Council

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/50

         Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Stavytskyi v Council
   (Case T-242/16)
   (2016/C 270/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, insofar as these acts retain the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to restrictive measures;

               —

               order the council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the listing suffers from illegality as it has been amended to allow for listing on the basis merely of being subject to criminal proceedings, without any requirement of judicial endorsement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council gave an insufficient and stereotypical statement of reasons, as it merely copied the text found in the listing legislation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment as it did not have sufficiently solid factual basis for listing the applicant on the ground that he was subject to criminal proceeding by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public funds or assets.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the measures taken by the Council do not, in relation to the applicant, constitute foreign policy measures, but instead constitute international cooperation in criminal proceedings, which accordingly have been adopted on an incorrect legal basis.


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-347/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-390/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/52)                                                      (2003/C 55/55)
By order of 28 November 2002 the President of the Court of          By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-347/01: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-390/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.                                        (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-377/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-21/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/53)                                                      (2003/C 55/56)
                                                                    By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-21/02: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-377/01: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Italian Republic.
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.03.2002.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-88/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-389/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/57)
                         (2003/C 55/54)
                                                                    By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             from the register of Case C-88/02 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-389/01: Commission of the               ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite italiana SpA (SDI)
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                         v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                         (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case T-79/17: Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Schoonjans v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/42

         Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Schoonjans v Commission
   (Case T-79/17)
   (2017/C 112/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alain Schoonjans (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that

               —

               The decision of the selection board of the competition of 11 April 2016 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in Internal Competition COM/02/AST/16 is annulled;

               —

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;

               —

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises a plea of illegality of the competition notice based on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), inasmuch as the Commission restricted access to the internal competition organised for grade AST 2 to those members of the contractual staff in Function Group III.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as that condition for admission is not, in any event, justified by the interest of the service or the type of posts to be filled.


title: Case C-151/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Spain lodged on 14 April 2008 — N.N. Renta, S.A. v Generalitat de Catalunya

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Spain lodged on 14 April 2008 — N.N. Renta, S.A. v Generalitat de Catalunya
   (Case C-151/08)
   (2008/C 158/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña, Spain
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: N.N. Renta, S.A.

      Defendants: Generalitat de Catalunya
   Question referred
   Is it compatible with Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 to maintain the variable or proportional amount of the duty on documented legal transactions when the latter is chargeable on the conclusion of a purchase by an undertaking whose business activity consists of buying and selling immovable property or purchasing immovable property for development or letting, the chargeable event or transaction, the basis of assessment and the taxable person in respect of the duty on documented legal transactions being the same as those in respect of value added tax, which is chargeable simultaneously in respect of the same purchase?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1; EE 09/01, p. 54.


title: Case T-218/01: Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire Monique Remy against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.11.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/35
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      lenging the decision. The applicant also disputes the stipulation
                                                                          in the decision that other information and supporting docu-
                                                                          ments were necessary. According to the applicant it had
The applicant is a non-governmental organisation whose                    submitted all the necessary documents and, if the Commission
objects are to fight racism and to protect the interests of               required other material, it should have requested it from the
immigrants in the European Union. To that end the applicant               applicant.
received subsidies from the Commission for the year 2000, in
accordance with the agreement entered into by the two parties.
In the challenged decision the Council terminated that financial
aid because of financial irregularities established against the
applicant.
In support of its action the applicant relies on:                         Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     failure to observe the general conditions of the grant
      agreement of 24 May 2000;                                                                    (Case T-220/01)
—     failure to respect the rights of the defence in an adminis-
                                                                                (2001/C 317/69)
      trative case. According to the applicant the disputed
      decision was made without the applicant being heard and
      was not based on proper reasons;                                                        (Language of the case: French)
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Calberson
                                                                          G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
                                                                          Gallois, lawyer.
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Monique Remy against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                    —     order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
                                                                                sation equal to the amounts of the following invoices:
                          (Case T-218/01)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 963 for DEM 82 991,96 — additional
                                                                                loading charges;
                          (2001/C 317/68)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 098 for DEM 900 corresponding to fines
                    (Language of the case: French)                                    paid to the Polish authorities;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       —     BRU 0135 099 for DEM 6 960 corresponding to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                            fines paid to the Polish authorities;
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire
Monique Remy, established at Grasse (France), represented by                    —     BRU 0135 964 for DEM 16 050 — the cost of
Jean-Félix Pupel, lawyer.                                                             plastic sheeting charged by the store manager;
                                                                          —     order that interest at the legal rate be added to the
The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2001)1380                        compensation from the 8th day after each unpaid invoice;
of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial assistance granted
to the applicant by Commission Decision C(93)3185 of                      —     order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.
10 November 1993 concerning the grant of aid from the
EAGGF Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.FR.06.027
entitled: ‘Pilot project to demonstrate exploitation of the Iris, a       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Mediterranean plant, for the luxury perfume industry and food
flavourings (France, Spain, Greece)’.                                     This case concerns the execution of Lots 5 and 7 of Regulation
                                                                          No 1799/1999 on the transport of beef from the intervention
                                                                          stock in Germany to Russia. Under the terms of that regulation,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      the applicant was to provide, at the departure points, services
                                                                          comprising handling and loading the means of transport. The
                                                                          applicant invoiced the intervention agency for those services
The applicant claims that the decision does not observe the               in compliance with the quotation which had been given to the
code of sound administrative conduct because it does not                  applicant by the intervention agency, which had itself received
contain any information concerning the possibilities of chal-             the quotation from the company managing the store.


title: Case C-234/02 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2002 by the European Ombudsman against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-209/00 between F. Lamberts and the European Ombudsman

text:
27.7.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 180/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Appeal brought on 24 June 2002 by the European
                                                                        Ombudsman against the judgment delivered on 10 April
                                                                        2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                        of the European Communities in Case T-209/00 between
—     annul the decision whereby the Commission concluded                        F. Lamberts and the European Ombudsman
      with the United States of America guidelines on legislative
      cooperation and transparency;
                                                                                (Case C-234/02 P)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                     (2002/C 180/33)
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2002
                                                                        by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-209/00 between F. Lamberts
                                                                        and the European Ombudsman was brought before the Court
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June 2002 by
                                                                        the European Ombudsman represented by J. Sant’Anna, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Despite the careful language of the document attached to
      a memorandum which the Commission sent to Com-                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
      mittee 133, responsible for the common commercial
      policy, matters of substance lead the French Government
      to think that the guidelines are a genuine undertaking            —     annul the decision concerning the admissibility of the
      and place obligations on the parties. In those guidelines               action for damages in the judgment of the Court of First
      are very precisely set out the objectives pursued, the                  Instance delivered on 10 April 2002 in Case T-209/00
      scope of action and the measures to adopt in order to                   Frank Lamberts v European Ombudsman and thus declare
      achieve the objectives set. The fact that those guidelines              that that action is inadmissible.
      are not, of themselves, intended to modify the state of
      Community law cannot disguise the fact that they
      constitute, at the very least, an undertaking to cooperate
      on the part of the parties. Moreover, the provisions under
      Title VI of the guidelines, regarding monitoring of               Pleas in law and main arguments
      their implementation, clearly demonstrate the mandatory
      nature of the cooperation undertaking entered into by
      the parties. The existence of a surveillance mechanism is
      witness to the fact that the authors of the guidelines            Breach of Community law
      clearly sought to rule out the parties seeking refuge
      behind the voluntary nature of the cooperation to negate
      the undertaking to which they had subscribed.                     The decision at issue contravenes the constitutional scheme
                                                                        established by the Treaty, concerning the liability of the
                                                                        Ombudsman. In reviewing the legality of the inquiry procedure
      Since those guidelines must be seen as an international           conducted by the Ombudsman and of the decision closing the
      agreement within the meaning of Article 300 EC, the               case, the Court of First Instance overstepped the limits of
      measure whereby the Commission decided to enter into              judicial review of action by the Ombudsman. It carried out a
      it is vitiated by lack of competence and cannot but be            review of the Ombudsman’s exercise of his mandate, a review
      annulled.                                                         which the treaties assign to the European Parliament and
                                                                        which had already been carried out by that institution.
—     The guidelines are also contrary to the EC Treaty inas-           In declaring the case admissible the Court of First Instance
      much as they amount to a restriction of the sole power            failed to distinguish between actions for damages, on the one
      to propose which the Commission enjoys in the context             hand, and actions for annulment and actions for failure to act,
      of the Community legislative process and they affect the          on the other. The Ombudsman does not in the least deny that
      whole of the legislative process.                                 it is open to a citizen to bring an action for damages against
                                                                        the Ombudsman on the ground of the latter’s possibly
                                                                        wrongful action or behaviour causing damage to the former.
                                                                        However, whilst the Court of First Instance rightly found that
                                                                        the Treaty confers on citizens a right to submit complaints to
                                                                        the Ombudsman and to receive an answer from him, it was
                                                                        wrong to conclude that it could review the Ombudsman’s
 ---pagebreak--- C 180/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
inquiries and their conclusions in order to assess whether there        review of the legality of the entire procedure and conclusions
was any fault underlying the damage caused to the citizen.              of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Court of First Instance opens
There is no common constitutional tradition of submitting the           up the possibility of numerous actions for annulment, or
inquiries and findings of ombudsmen to judicial review. On              even actions for failure to act, being brought against the
the contrary, in the nordic countries, where the office of              Ombudsman in the guise of alleged actions for damages.
ombudsman originated, such review is excluded on consti-
tutional grounds based on the respective powers and functions           On the facts of the present case it should be acknowledged
of the courts and ombudsmen.                                            that, although brought against the Ombudsman, the action for
                                                                        damages clearly sought compensation for damage caused by
                                                                        the action of the European Commission, which had been the
In carrying out a review of the duty to inform the complainant,         subject of the citizen’s complaint to the Ombudsman. In
the value of documents received within certain time-limits,             holding that that action was admissible although the damage
compliance with procedural time-limits and the validity of the          the citizen complained of was a matter for the institution
Ombudsman’s conclusions following the inquiry into the                  concerned by the complaint the Court of First Instance
possibility of friendly solutions, the Court of First Instance has      must have considered that the purpose of the Ombudsman’s
called into question the distinction between actions for                inquiries is to protect the interests of injured citizens who have
annulment and for failure to act, on the one hand, and the              suffered damage as a result of the wrongful conduct of the
action for damages, on the other. In agreeing to carry out a            institutions, which is not the case.


title: Case T-171/00: Action brought on 23 June 2000 by Peter Spruyt against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        26.8.2000
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                           residing at Arolo di Leggiuno (Italy), represented by Eric
                                                                          Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
—    Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     The contested decision, which takes the form of a ‘file
     note’, is vitiated by the total absence of any statement of          —     annul the decision headed ‘Article 73 of the Staff Regu-
     reasons;                                                                   lations’, taken on 13 September 1999 by the Head of the
                                                                                Unit responsible for insurance against accidents and
—    Infringement of Article 7 EC and failure to have regard to                 occupational diseases within DG IX — Personnel and
     the principle of conferred powers:                                         Administration, acting as the appointing authority, by
                                                                                which the applicant was informed of the appointing
     The Commission had itself found fault with the appli-                      authority’s refusal to apply Article 73 of the Staff Regu-
     cant’s civil status, instead of acting in conformity with the              lations and to reimburse his medical expenses, on the
     rights of the Member States, which have sole legislative                   ground that the matter involved an accident arising from
     competence in matters of personal status;                                  the practice of a sport regarded as dangerous within the
                                                                                meaning of the third indent in Article 4(1)(e) of the Rules
—    Infringement of the principle of the integrity of personal                 on the insurance of officials of the European Communities
     status:                                                                    against the risk of accident and of occupational disease;
     By the contested decision, the Commission deprives the               —     annul the implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s
     applicant of any possibility of asserting his rights arising               complaint seeking annulment of the above-mentioned
     from his personal status;                                                  contested decision;
—    Violation of the principles of non-discrimination and of             —     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant all
     freedom of movement for workers:                                           the medical expenses connected with the hang-gliding
                                                                                accident sustained by him on 9 May 1999, together with
     The applicant pleads discrimination based on sex and                       default interest at the annual rate of 8 % from the date of
     sexual orientation, contrary to Article 141 EC, infringe-                  the accident to the date of actual reimbursement;
     ment of Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
     and discrimination on grounds of nationality;                        —     rule that it is for the defendant to bear the cost of paying
                                                                                the benefits referable to total and partial temporary
—    Infringement of the right to privacy:                                      incapacity and partial permanent incapacity, in accord-
                                                                                ance with the rates and criteria to be determined by an
     The contested decision constitutes unauthorised inter-                     expert or agreed between the parties;
     ference with the exercise of the right to the protection of
     privacy and family life.                                             —     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations and of the second indent in Article 4(1)(b) of
                                                                          the rules referred to above, as well as violation of the principles
Action brought on 23 June 2000 by Peter Spruyt against                    of the protection of legitimate expectations and of equal
      the Commission of the European Communities                          treatment.
                          (Case T-171/00)                                 He maintains in that regard that the contested decision is
                                                                          manifestly based on an incorrect interpretation of the second
                         (2000/C 247/64)                                  indent in Article 4(1)(b) of the rules, in that, because hang-
                                                                          gliding is not expressly referred to in the list of sports expressly
                                                                          mentioned in that provision, the defendant was not entitled to
                    (Language of the case: French)                        regard it as a ground for excluding the social cover defined in
                                                                          Article 73 of the Staff Regulations without producing evidence
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 to show either that it is assimilable to the practice of one of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the sports mentioned or that it is regarded as dangerous, which
European Communities on 23 June 2000 by Peter Spruyt,                     it has not done.


title: Case T-620/16: Action brought on 30 August 2016 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/51

         Action brought on 30 August 2016 — The Logistical Approach v EUIPO — Idea Groupe (Idealogistic)
   (Case T-620/16)
   (2016/C 402/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, the Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Idealogistic’– Application for registration No 12 318 234

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/06/2016 in Case R 1435/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               principally, annul the contested decision;

               —

               alternatively, amend the contested decision in that it wrongly confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the registration of the mark 012318234 for the services ‘Consultancy in the field of logistics, including route selection, storage facilities and selection of means of transport’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case T-345/05 R III: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — V v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Waiver of immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — No prima facie case)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/22

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — V v Parliament
   (Case T-345/05 R III)
   (Application for interim measures - Waiver of immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - No prima facie case)
   (2008/C 37/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: V (represented by: J Lofthouse, C Hayes and M Monan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H Krück, D Moore and M Windisch, agents)
   Re:
   Application for re-examination of the applicant's first and second applications for interim measures, dismissed by orders of the President of the Court of First Instance on 16 March 2007 and 27 June 2007 in Case T-345/05 R and T-345/05 R II, V v Parliament, not published in the ECR
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-287/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of  15 July 2005  in D.P.W. Hendrix v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of 15 July 2005 in D.P.W. Hendrix v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-287/05)
   (2005/C 296/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court) of 15 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 18 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between D.P.W. Hendrix and Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen on the following questions:

               1.

               Must a benefit under the Wajong, listed in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, (1) be deemed to be a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No 1408/71, with the result that only the coordinating provision introduced by Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 must be applied to persons such as the appellant in the main proceedings? In answering this question does it make any difference whether the person concerned originally received a benefit (funded by contributions) for disabled young persons under the AAW which was converted by operation of the law into a Wajong benefit as of 1 January 1998?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can a worker rely on Article 39 EC, as implemented by Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68, (2) against the Member State of which he is a national where he has worked solely in that Member State but resides in the territory of another Member State?

               3.

               If the answers to Question 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: must Article 39 EC, as implemented by Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, be understood as meaning that a provision of legislation which makes the grant or continuation of a benefit conditional on the person concerned being resident in the territory of the Member State whose legislation is at issue is always compatible therewith where that legislation provides for a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No 1408/71, and is listed in Annex IIa to that regulation?

               4.

               If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative and the answer to Question 3 is in the negative: must Community law (including, inter alia, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 39 EC and Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) be understood as meaning that sufficient justification can be found in the nature of the Wajong to invoke the residence condition against a citizen of the Union who is in full-time employment in the Netherlands and in that regard is subject solely to Netherlands legislation?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1971 (II), p. 416).

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (II), p. 475).


title: Case T-241/10: Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Poland v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/47

         Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-241/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/71
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 (notified under document C(2010) 1317) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it excludes from Community financing the amounts of PLN 279 794 442,15 and EUR 25 583 996,81 in expenditure incurred by the payment agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision provides for a financial correction resulting from alleged failings in the system for the identification and monitoring of agricultural land parcels in 2005 and 2006 relating to: non-completion of land parcel system vectorisation; acceptance of ineligible land for payments; excessively low number of on-the-spot checks in regions with high error rates (Województwo Opolskie (Opole Province)); and erroneous application of provisions of intentional non-compliance.
   The applicant questions the existence of all of the failings alleged and raises the following heads of complaint against the contested decision.
   First, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (2) and of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, (3) as well as a breach of Guidelines No VI/5330/97, by reason of the application of a financial correction based on a misconstruction of the facts and a misinterpretation of the law, despite the fact that the expenditure was effected by the Polish authorities in accordance with European Union rules.
   In the applicant’s view, none of the alleged failings underlying the financial correction effected actually occurred, while the expenditure excluded from financing by the European Union on the basis of the contested decision was effected in accordance with European Union rules.
   The applicant contends that the system for identifying agricultural parcels which was applied in Poland in 2005 and 2006 complied in full with the requirements laid down in Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4) and in Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004, (5) significantly exceeding those requirements in several respects and guaranteeing a rigorous protection of the financial interests of the European Union.
   It further argues that the national procedures applied in 2005 and 2006 made it possible to establish, in an effective and objective manner, whether there had been intentional or unintentional action on the part of an applicant in the event of a declaration of areas of land for payment, providing, in cases of doubt, for judicial resolution and respecting the principle of the presumption of innocence.
   The applicant also submits that the acceptance of land for payment was in accordance with the conditions relating to the eligibility of land, regard being had to the fact that, in accordance with the Act of Accession, a condition for the eligibility of land is that it was being maintained in good agricultural condition (GAC) on 30 June 2003, whereas maintenance of the land in good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) on the day of monitoring was not a condition governing eligibility of the land but rather a condition, failure to comply with which would lead to a reduction in the rate of payment.
   In addition, the applicant contends that the number of on-the-spot checks in 2005 in the Opolski Province was effected on a basis which was in compliance with the requirements of Article 26 of Regulation No 796/2004.
   Second, the applicant argues that there has been a breach of the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 and of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, a breach of Guidelines No VI/5330/97 and infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the application of a correction in an amount which was flagrantly excessive in relation to the risk of potential financial loss to the budget of the European Union.
   In the view of the applicant, even if it were to be established that there were certain breaches in the control and penalty system established by the Polish authorities — which is denied –such breaches would be so insignificant that the risk of possible losses for the Union budget would be many times lower than the level of the correction applied by the Commission in the contested decision. This in particular relates to the level of the correction applied by the Commission by reason of the non-completion of the vectorisation system for identification of land parcels and by reason of the allegedly inadequate number of on-the-spot checks in Opole Province in 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).


title: Joined Cases C-537/12 and C 116/13: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No. 1 de Catarroja and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No. 17 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo, Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez (C-537/12), and Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquín Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume (C-116/13) (Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer contracts — Mortgage loan agreement — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement — Unfair terms — Criteria for assessment)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/3

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No. 1 de Catarroja and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No. 17 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — Banco Popular Español SA v Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo, Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez (C-537/12), and Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquín Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume (C-116/13)
   (Joined Cases C-537/12 and C 116/13) (1)

   ((Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement - Unfair terms - Criteria for assessment))
   2014/C 102/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No. 1 de Catarroja (Spain) and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No. 17 de Palma de Mallorca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Banco Popular Español SA (C-537/12), Banco de Valencia SA (C-116/13)

      Defendants: Maria Teodolinda Rivas Quichimbo, Wilmar Edgar Cun Pérez (C-537/12), Joaquín Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume (C-116/13)

      Re:

   (C-537/12)
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Protection of consumers in relation to mortgages — Ground for application raised in enforcement proceedings based on an unfair term in the mortgage agreement — National legislation on civil procedure applicable to the enforcement proceedings which precludes such a ground of opposition — Lack of competence of the national courts to assess whether such a term is unfair.
   (C-116/13)
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Palma de Mallorca — Interpretation of Article 3(1) and 3(7) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC and points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Protection of consumers in relation to mortgages — National legislation on civil procedure applicable to mortgage enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the court responsible for the enforcement, in mortgage enforcement proceedings, either to assess of its own motion or at the consumer’s request, the unfairness of a term contained in the contract which gives rise to the debt claimed and which constitutes the basis of the right to enforcement, or to grant interim relief capable of staying or terminating the mortgage enforcement proceedings, where such relief is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the final decision of the court hearing the declaratory proceedings before which the consumer argues that that term is unfair.

               2.

               Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13 and Points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex thereto must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess the unfairness of a contractual term accelerating the repayment of a mortgage, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the following are of decisive importance:

                           —

                           whether the right of the seller or supplier to cancel the contract unilaterally is conditional upon the non-compliance by the consumer with an obligation which is of essential importance in the context of the contractual relationship in question,

                           —

                           whether that right is provided for in cases in which such non-compliance is sufficiently serious in the light of the contractual term and amount of the loan,

                           —

                           whether that right derogates from the rules applicable in the absence of agreement between the parties, so as to make it more difficult for the consumer, given the procedural means at his disposal, to take legal action and exercise rights of the defence, and

                           —

                           whether national law provides for adequate and effective means enabling the consumer subject to such a contractual term to remedy the effects of the unilateral cancellation of the loan agreement.

         It is for the national court to make such an assessment on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case before it.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

      OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-474/04: Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Pergan GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/27

         Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Pergan GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-474/04)
   (2005/C 45/59)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 December 2004 by Pergan GmbH, Bocholt (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Decision SG-Greffe (2004) D/204343 of 1 October 2004 in so far as the applicant's request for removal of all references to the applicant in the definitively published version of the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 imposing fines in Case COMP/E-2/37.857 – Organic Peroxides was refused;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission refused in part the applicant's request of 13 July 2004 for removal of all references to conduct of the applicant allegedly contrary to cartel law in the definitively published version of the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 imposing fines in Case COMP/E-2/37.857 – Organic Peroxides.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims, first, that, under Article 21 of Regulation No 17/62, the published version of a decision imposing fines for an infringement may name only the participating undertakings. Since the applicant was not the addressee of the decision imposing fines, the Commission is prohibited from publishing its findings in respect of the applicant. Moreover, it was impermissible for the Commission to assume that a decision finding an infringement on the part of the applicant would be adopted. In the applicant's view, the Commission has no competence under Regulation No 17/92 to adopt such a decision and is unable to establish a legitimate interest in doing so. Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the right to an effective legal remedy laid down in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that connection, the applicant argues that, although the Commission alleges that it is guilty of comprehensive breaches of cartel law, it omitted to address the decision imposing fines to it and thus restricted its ability to avail itself of a legal remedy.


title: Case C-294/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of military equipment and of dual-use goods for civil and military use)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-294/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment and of dual-use goods for civil and military use)
   2010/C 51/03
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Ström van Lier, P. Dejmek and G. Wilms, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and A. Falk, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty-free imports of military equipment and goods for civilian or military use

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to declare and pay to the European Commission own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002, relating to imports of war material and goods for both civil and military use, and by failing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the European Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, until 31 May 2000 and, after that date, the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case C-21/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Catlin Europe SE v O.K. Trans Praha spol. s.r.o.

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Catlin Europe SE v O.K. Trans Praha spol. s.r.o.
   (Case C-21/17)
   (2017/C 112/28)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Catlin Europe SE

      Applicant in the original proceedings: O.K. Trans Praha spol. s.r.o.

      Question referred

   Is Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure to be interpreted to the effect that a failure to notify the addressee of the possibility of refusing to accept the documents to be served, as provided for under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (3) (‘the Service of documents Regulation’), gives grounds for a right on the part of the defendant (the addressee) to apply for review of the European order for payment under Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (‘the European order for payment Regulation’)?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.

      (3)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37.


title: Case C-113/08: Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/17

         Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-113/08)
   (2008/C 116/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.A. Rabinal Suárez and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions and in particular the following: Article 17, Article 72, Article 22 to 25, Article 30, Article 33, Article 35, Article 40, Article 41, Article 43, Article 44, Article 50, Annexes I and II, Annex VII, and, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/49/EC into national law expired on 31 December 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 177, p. 201.


title: Case T-295/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Corrigendum to the notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — New competition procedures — Choice of second language from three languages — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-295/13) (1)

   ((Languages - Corrigendum to the notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - New competition procedures - Choice of second language from three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 059/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

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

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogado del Estado)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 to constitute a reserve list from which to recruit administrators in the fields of European public administration, law, economics, audit and information and communication technology (OJ 2013 C 82 A, p. 1), and corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/178/10 and corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/179/10 to constitute a reserve list from which to recruit administrators in the fields of, respectively, librarianship and information science and audiovisual, published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 82 A, of 21 March 2013 (OJ 2013 C 82 A, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the corrigendum, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 March 2013, to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/177/10 to constitute a reserve list from which to recruit administrators in the fields of European public administration, law, economics, audit and information and communication technology, and the corrigendum, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 March 2013, to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/178/10 and corrigendum to notice of open competition EPSO/AD/179/10 to constitute a reserve list from which to recruit administrators in the fields of, respectively, librarianship and information science and audiovisual, in so far as their nature and content have been identified in paragraphs 68 to 70 of the present judgment;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Italian Republic;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs relating to its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-83/12 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2012 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa Vo (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Community Code on Visas — Articles 21 and 34 — National legislation — Third country nationals brought illegally into the territory of a Member State — Visas obtained by fraud — Criminal penalties imposed on the human smuggler)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2012 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa Vo
   (Case C-83/12 PPU) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Community Code on Visas - Articles 21 and 34 - National legislation - Third country nationals brought illegally into the territory of a Member State - Visas obtained by fraud - Criminal penalties imposed on the human smuggler)
   2012/C 174/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party in the main proceedings

   Minh Khoa Vo

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1) — National legislation imposing criminal penalties on persons who smuggle foreign nationals into national territory — Applicability of penalties when the foreign nationals concerned are in possession of a visa obtained by false pretences from a competent authority of another Member State but which has not yet been annulled pursuant to that regulation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national provisions under which assisting illegal immigration constitutes an offence subject to criminal penalties in cases where the persons smuggled, third country nationals, hold visas which they obtained fraudulently by deceiving the competent authorities of the Member State of issue as to the true purpose of their journey, without prior annulment of those visas.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case C-491/14: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2015 (requet for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid — Spain) — Rosa dels Vents Assessoria SL v U Hostels Albergues Juveniles SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Concept of ‘third party’ — Proprietor of a later trade mark)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/13

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2015 (requet for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid — Spain) — Rosa dels Vents Assessoria SL v U Hostels Albergues Juveniles SL
   (Case C-491/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Concept of ‘third party’ - Proprietor of a later trade mark))
   (2015/C 213/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rosa dels Vents Assessoria SL

      Defendant: U Hostels Albergues Juveniles SL

      Operative part of the order

   Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, of 22 October 2008, to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark to prevent any third party from using, in course of trade, signs identical with or similar to his mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-619/16: Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Sicignano v EUIPO — Inprodi (GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/45

         Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Sicignano v EUIPO — Inprodi (GiCapri ‘a giacchett’e capri’)
   (Case T-619/16)
   (2016/C 392/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pasquale Sicignano (Santa Maria la Cairtà, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inghirami Produzione Distribuzione SpA (Inprodi) (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GiCapri “a giacchett'e capri”’ — Application for registration No 12 512 778

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2016 in Case R 806/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO delivered on 2 June 2016 in Case R 806/2015-5 dismissing application No 12512778 for registration of the composite mark GiCapri ‘a Giacchett’e capri’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 35, which should therefore be granted;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-354/13: Action brought on 4 July 2013 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/43

         Action brought on 4 July 2013 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission
   (Case T-354/13)
   2013/C 260/78
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. T. Saatkamp, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 8 April 2013 in the cases ‘Kołocz śląski/Kołacz śląski’ — Schlesischer Streuselkuchen (Ref. Ares [2013] 619104 — 10 April 2013).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: incorrect legal basis

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the defendant erred in law in basing its decision concerning the applicant’s request for cancellation of the registration of ‘Kołocz śląski/Kołacz śląski’ as a protected geographical indication on the new version of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, (1) in force at the time of the defendant’s decision, instead of on the old Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, (2) in force at the time when the applicant submitted its request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle of tempus regit actum.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the request for cancellation of the registration under Regulation No 510/2006 is admissible and well founded. In this connection, it maintains, inter alia, that there are two grounds for cancellation (the generic nature of the contested indication within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, and the erroneous delimitation of the geographic zone of Silesia in the registration specifications) for the purpose of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006, and that any different interpretation and application of that provision would infringe the fundamental rights of bakeries in the Federal Republic of Germany.

               2.

               Second plea in law: breach of Regulation No 1151/2012

                           —

                           The applicant claims that its request would be admissible and well founded even if it were assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).


title: Case T-325/04: Action brought on 5 August 2004 by Citicorp against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/31

         Action brought on 5 August 2004 by Citicorp against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-325/04)
   (2004/C 273/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 2004 by Citicorp, New York (United States), represented by Dr V. von Bomhard, Dr A. Renck, Dr C. Schulte and Dr A. Pohlmann, lawyers.
   Link Interchange Network Ltd. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 May 2004 in case R0789/2002-1;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Citicorp

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The word mark ‘Worldlink’ (application No 111880)

               Goods and services:

               Class 9, 16 and 36

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Link Interchange Network Ltd.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national word and device mark ‘LINK’ for services in class 36 (banking services for the dispensing of cash, funds transfer and payment services, financial information services)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the Community trade mark application for the services financial affairs and monetary affairs in class 36

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (1) and of Article 8(1)(b) of the same regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)