title: Case C-184/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 April 2010 — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 April 2010 — Mathilde Grasser v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-184/10)
   2010/C 179/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mathilde Grasser

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Question referred

   Are Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a host Member State is entitled to refuse to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State where entries appearing in the driving licence show that Article 7(1)(b) of that directive has been infringed, if the host Member State has not previously applied to the holder of the licence a measure under Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439/EEC?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences; OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.


title: Case T-43/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by La Maison de l'Europe Avignon-Méditerranée against Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/39
Mark or sign cited in          The German word/figurative                  Pleas in law and main arguments
opposition:                    mark ‘AXON’ (No 1108589) for
                               goods and services in classes 10,           Applicant for Com-           Applicant
                               12, 35 and 36                               munity trade mark:
Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the opposition                 Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘Julián Murúa
sition Division:                                                           sought:                      Entrena’        —       Application
                                                                                No 62.588 for products in
Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the                                         Class 33 (wines).
Appeal:                        Opposition Division and referral
                               of the case back to the Opposition          Proprietor of mark or        Bodegas Murúa S.A.
                               Division                                    sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
Pleas in law:                  —     There is no similarity
                                     between the marks opposed,            Mark or sign cited in        Spanish trade mark ‘MURUA’
                                     within the meaning of                 opposition:                  and international registration
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation                                      No 482.779 having effect in Ger-
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1).                                                 many, France, Austria, Switzer-
                                                                                land and Benelux for products in
                               —     There is no likelihood of                                          Class 33.
                                     confusion.
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition accepted.
                                                                           sition Division:
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                            Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                Incorrect        application      of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion).
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa
Entrena against the Office for Harmonisation in the
     Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-40/03)                                   Action brought on 10 February 2003 by La Maison de
                                                                           l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée against Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                         (2003/C 101/71)
                                                                                (Case T-43/03)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/72)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                               (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa Entrena, residing in El
Ciego, Álava (Spain), represented by Ignacio Temiño Ceniceros,             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lawyer.                                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 10 February 2003 by La Maison
                                                                           de l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée, established in Avignon
                                                                           (France), represented by François Martineau, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the contested decision refusing the Community                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
       trade-mark application No 62.588 in Class 33;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay EUR 100 000 to make good
—      order the parties to bear their own costs and half of the                 the damage suffered by La Maison de l’Europe Avignon-
       common costs.                                                             Méditerranée as a result of the disclosure of deceitful,
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        26.4.2003
      or at the very least confidential, information by the                     were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      representative of the European Commission in Marseille;                   cost of the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek
                                                                                frontier posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of
—     order the defendant to pay all the recoverable costs,                     an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
      which amounts to EUR 10 000.
                                                                          —     annul all the applicants’ reimbursement statements
                                                                                implementing the decisions annulment of which is
                                                                                sought;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     pay the applicants the entire amount which is outstanding
                                                                                as a result of the implementation of the decisions
The applicant claims that, during a meeting in Marseille on                     annulment of which is sought, together with interest at
23 January 2003, a representative of the defendant divulged                     the legal rate;
deceitful or at the very least confidential information. Such
disclosure resulted in damage for which it seeks compensation             —     order the Commission to pay the costs, expenses and fees
in the present application. In support of its arguments, the                    incurred.
applicant alleges non-contractual liability of the defendant in
the context of Article 288 EC and alleged breach of the
confidentiality obligation imposed on the representative of the
defendant by Article 287 EC.                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission changing the procedure for
                                                                          calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece.
Action brought on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      In support of the (main and alternative) arguments for
and Others against Commission of the European Com-                        annulment, the applicants essentially rely on six pleas in law
                            munities                                      alleging, first, infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                          lations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII thereto;
                                                                          second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination; third,
                         (Case T-44/03)                                   infringement of the rights of the defence; fourth, breach of the
                                                                          principle that arbitrary procedures are prohibited and of the
                        (2003/C 101/73)                                   obligation to provide a statement of reasons; fifth, breach of
                                                                          the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
                                                                          of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’; and sixth, breach
                   (Language of the case: French)                         of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                          officials.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Giorgio
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and 49
other officials, represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio S.p.A.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-45/03)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      changing, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the                                           (2003/C 101/74)
      period within those years during which the applicants
      were officials of the Commission in Luxembourg, the
      procedure for calculating the annual expense of travelling                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      to Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken
      into consideration for certain destinations;
      alternatively,                                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority          European Communities on 6 February 2003 by Riva Acciaio
      to reimburse, in respect of 1993, 1994 and 1995 or the              S.p.A., represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, Massimo Merola,
      period within those years during which the applicants               Maurizio Pappalardo and Federica Martin, lawyers.


C 118/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.4.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil                         Removal from the register of Case C-343/99 (1)
d’État, judicial section, by judgment of that court of
29 January 2001 in the case of Malika Tennah-Durez
   against the Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins                                          (2001/C 118/37)
                                                                          By order of 25 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                          (Case C-110/01)                                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                          the register of Case C-343/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
                          (2001/C 118/36)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the French Conseil
d’État (Council of State), judicial section, of 29 January 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 9 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Malika Tennah-Durez against
the Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins (National Council
of the Medical Association) on the following questions:
1.    Are the provisions of Article 23(2) of Council Directive                   Removal from the register of Case C-157/98 (1)
      93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) relating to the period of
      medical training that a doctor who is a national of a
                                                                                (2001/C 118/38)
      Member State must have completed, comprising at least
      a six-year course or 5 500 hours of theoretical and
      practical instruction given in a university or under the            By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
      supervision of a university, to be understood as meaning            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
      training completed, in its entirety, only in a university of        the register of Case C-157/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
      a Member State of the Community or under the super-                 Commission of the European Communities.
      vision of such a university, or do they allow all or part of
      any training received in a third country to be taken into
      account?
                                                                          (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
2.    Are the national authorities bound by the certificate
      provided, pursuant to Article 9(5) of the directive, by the
      competent authorities of the Member State in which the
      diploma submitted by the person concerned was awarded,
      which states that the diploma is treated as one of the
      qualifications or designations set out in Article 3, 5 or 7
      of the directive and was awarded following training in
      accordance with the provisions of Title III thereof, or may
      they make their own assessment of the said certificate                     Removal from the register of Case C-410/99 (1)
      in the light of, in particular, the minimum training
      requirements prescribed by the directive and required by
      national legislation in order, in some circumstances, to                                   (2001/C 118/39)
      consider whether, despite the terms of the certificate so
      issued, the training received by the person concerned
      meets the requirements of the directive?                            By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                          the register of Case C-410/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                          ruling from Kantongerecht te Groningen): Kamer van
(1) Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free    Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Groningen v Challenger Trad-
    movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their               ing Company Ltd.
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
    (OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1).
                                                                          (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.


title: Case C-75/06: Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-75/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/48)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-67/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/24/EC — Traditional herbal medicinal products — Community code — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-67/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/24/EC - Traditional herbal medicinal products - Community code - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 22/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues abd R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95 of 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-685/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BLUECO — Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)
      (Case T-685/13) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BLUECO - Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 073/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, United States) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2028/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-13/05: Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Castell del Remei S.L against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/24

         Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Castell del Remei S.L against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-13/05)
   (2005/C 69/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 January 2004 by Castell del Remei S.L, represented by Jorge Grau Mora and Alejandro Angulo, of the Barcelona Bar; Maria Baylos Morales and Antonio Velazquez Ibanez, of the Madrid Bar; Fernand de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Eric de Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, of the Brussels Bar, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal, of 27 October 2004, delivered in Case R 0691/2003-1; and

               2.

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘ODA’ — Application No 1.655.786, for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beers)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Bodegas Roda S.A.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               International word mark ‘RODA’ (No 703.486), Spanish word mark ‘BODEGAS RODA’ (No 1.757.553), ‘RODA II’ (No 2.006.615), ‘RODA I’ (No 2.006.616), and Greek national mark ‘RODA’ (No 137.050) for wines and spirits in Class 33 and the trade name ‘BODEGAS RIOJA’ for the ‘business dedicated to the creation and production of wines’.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld and application refused.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 June 1995 in Case T-459/93: Siemens SA v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid P General aid P Recovery P Interest P Admissibility of the application for leave to intervene)

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/ 19
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 8 June 1995                                                           of 8 June 1995
in Case T-9/93 : Schöller Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG v.                   in Case T-459/93 : Siemens SA v. Commission of the
        Commission of the European Communities (')                                           European Communities ( 1 )
(Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements for                       (State aid — General aid — Recovery — Interest —
ice-cream — Relevant market — Possible barriers to entry to                  Admissibility of the application for leave to intervene)
the market by third parties — Comfort letter — Negative                                              ( 95/C 208 /40 )
clearance — Duration ofagreements — Block exemption —
Prohibition of concluding exclusive dealing agreements in
                              the future)
                           ( 95/C 208/39 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-9/93 : Schöller Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG,                     In Case T-459/93 : Siemens SA, established at Brussels,
established in Nuremberg ( Germany ), represented by Ulrich              represented initially by Vincent Piessevaux and
Scholz, Rechtsanwalt, Nuremberg, and Rainer Bechtold,                    Jean-Jacques van Raemdonck and subsequently, in the oral
Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for service in                  procedure, by Jean-Jacques van Raemdonck and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 8 Rue                     Dominique Lagasse, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Zithe v. Commission of the European Communities                          service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1
(Agents : Bernd Langeheine and Alexander Böhlke ),                       Rue Goethe, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany
supported by Mars GmbH, established in Viersen                           ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Holger Wissel ), v. Commission of
( Germany ),      represented         by Jochim         Sedemund,        the European Communities ( Agents : initially, Sean Van
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and by John Pheasant, Solicitor,                  Raepenbusch and Daniel Calleja and subsequently, in the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                oral procedure, Daniel Calleja and Jean-Paul Keppenne ) —
of Michel Molitor, 14a Rue des Bains — application for the               application for the annulment of Articles 1 (c ) and 2 of
annulment      of   Commission         Decision   93/405/EEC     of
                                                                         Commission Decision 92/483/EEC of 24 June 1992
23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                    concerning aid provided by the Brussels Regional
Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Schöller Lebensmittel               Authorities ( Belgium ) in favour of the activities of Siemens
GmbH & Co KG ( IV/31.533 and IV/34.072 ( 2 )) the Court                  SA in the data-processing and telecommunications
of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),              sectors ( 2 ), the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,              composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M.
A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H.                Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
which it :
                                                                         8 June 1995 , in which it:
1 . annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 93/405/EEC
      of 23 December 1 992 relating to a proceeding pursuant
      to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Schöller                   1 . dismisses the application;
      Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG (IV/31.533 and
      IV/34.072);
2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;                             2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs;
3 . orders the applicant to bear all the costs of               the
      proceedings, including those in respect of                the      3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own
      application for interim measures and those of             the            costs .
      intervener, with the exception of one-quarter of          the
      costs incurred by the defendant;
4 . orders the defendant to bear one-quarter of its own                  ( ] ) OJ No C 322 , 9 . 12 . 1992 .
      costs .                                                            ( 2 ) OJ No L 288 , 3 . 10 . 1992, p . 25 .
(') OJ No C 62, 4 . 3 . 1993 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 26 . 7. 1993 , p . 1 .


title: Case T-272/06: Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of Justice

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/57

         Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of Justice
   (Case T-272/06)
   (2006/C 294/116)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 20 July 2006, rejecting its bid filed in response to the open Call for Tenders AM CJ 13/04 for the maintenance, development and support of computer applications (OJ 2005/S 127-125162 & 2005/S 171-169521) and awarding the same Call for Tender to another bidder.
   The applicant claims that the contested decision was taken in violation of the Financial Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 248, 16/09/02, p. 1), its Implementing Rules and Directive 2004/18/EC, through an alleged misinterpretation of the selection criteria, violation of the principles of transparency and equal treatment of the participants.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that the contracting authority's decision contains evident errors of assessment in the framework of the evaluation of its offer, exceeding, thus, the discretion that European Institutions dispose in procurement procedures.


title: Case T-788/14: Action brought on 28 November 2014 — MPF Holdings v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/38

         Action brought on 28 November 2014 — MPF Holdings v Commission
   (Case T-788/14)
   (2015/C 065/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MPF Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: D. Piccinin and E. Whiteford, Barristers, and E. Gibson-Bolton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 in case SA.35980 (2014/N-2) — United Kingdom, Electricity Market Reform — Capacity Market.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission unlawfully deprived MPF of its right to participate in the formal investigation procedure by failing to open a formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, notwithstanding that the capacity market gives rise to doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The applicant submits that:

               —

               the discriminatory availability of long contract durations cannot be justified by reference to the legitimate objective of procuring the necessary amount of generation capacity;

               —

               the Commission failed adequately to investigate the likely effects of the discriminatory availability of long contract durations on the efficiency of the capacity market and on the owners of existing plants;

               —

               the Commission failed adequately to investigate the United Kingdom Government’s purported justification for discriminatory contract durations, namely that independent generators that rely on project finance require long term contracts;

               —

               the Commission failed to justify or adequately to investigate the likely effects of the discriminatory price-taker/price-maker distinction.


title: Case T-205/02: Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 219/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-205/02)
By this action the applicant is contesting the obligation
imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany by the Com-                                         (2002/C 219/53)
mission in Article 3(2) of the contested decision to recover the
sum of EUR 2,71 million from the applicant. The applicant
claims that the Commission’s findings which led to the                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
adoption of Article 3(2) of the contested decision are in many
regards, both substantive and procedural, incorrect.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant contends that the Commission’s claim against             European Communities on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador
the applicant under State aid law is based exclusively on the          Garcia, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón Garcia
allegation that the applicant acquired certain know-how from           Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.
SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH (‘SKL-M’) under a
reciprocal licensing and cooperation agreement in 1997 for a
purchase price of DEM 6,71 million, when the actual costs              The applicant claims that the Court should:
incurred by SKL-M in developing that know-how exceeded the
sale price. The applicant merely acquired the right to use the
know-how, and the consideration it paid to SKL-M far exceeded          —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
the actual value of the know-how, so that the factual criterion              27 March 2002 refusing to grant the expatriation allow-
that the applicant must have received favourable treatment                   ance and, in consequence, the other related allowances;
under Article 87(1) EC is not met.
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant also claims that the Commission has failed to
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
show that the State was accountable for the conduct of SKL-M
in concluding the licensing and cooperation agreement or the
agreement between the applicant and SKL-M’s insolvency
administrator in 2000.                                                 The defendant in the present case contests the refusal of the
                                                                       appointing authority to grant the expatriation allowance and
                                                                       related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                       Regulations).
The applicant further contends that the applicant did not
receive favourable treatment meeting the criteria for aid              In support of her arguments, the applicant claims:
conferring a competitive advantage. Moreover the Commission
has not shown any actual or potential distortion of competition        —     manifest error of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the
on the markets on which the applicant is active, or any                      contested decision does not consider the work she did for
restriction of trade.                                                        a Delegation of an Autonomous Community in Brussels
                                                                             as ‘work done for another State’ nor the work done by
                                                                             her for the European Parliament as ‘work done for an
                                                                             international organisation’ within the meaning of the
                                                                             Staff Regulations as an exception to the reference period.
Finally the applicant claims that, by one sidedly taking
account of the unsubstantiated allegations of the insolvency           —     breach of the duty to provide reasons.
administrator, the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to assess
the facts impartially and completely.
                                                                       —     breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that the
                                                                             appointing authority treated essentially similar situations
                                                                             differently.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 December 2004 In Case T-240/02: Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Sum due for C Sugar disposed of on the internal market — Customs duty — Application for remission — Relief clause in Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Concept of import or export duties — Principles of equality and legal certainty — Fairness)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 December 2004
   In Case T-240/02: Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Sum due for C Sugar disposed of on the internal market - Customs duty - Application for remission - Relief clause in Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Concept of import or export duties - Principles of equality and legal certainty - Fairness)
   (2005/C 45/47)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-240/02: Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA, established in Breda (Netherlands), represented by M. Slotboom, N. Helder and J. Coumans, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis, assisted by F. Tuytschaever, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 19/01 of 2 May 2002, rejecting as inadmissible an application, submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, for remission of import duties in favour of the applicant – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and K. Jürimaäe, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case F-61/11: Action brought on 27 May 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/32

         Action brought on 27 May 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX
   (Case F-61/11)
   2011/C 226/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to revoke a previous decision to renew the contract of employment of the applicant and annulment of some parts of assessment reports for the period from August 2006 to December 2009.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 January 2011 as confirmed by the email of 25 January 2011, by the decision of 28 March 2011 and by the letter of 4 May 2011 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX;

               —

               annul the 2009 appraisal to the extent it contains the diverging comment of the countersigning officer of 30 October 2009;

               —

               annul the 2010 FRONTEX Annual Assessment Report Form A, dated 21 June 2010 to the extent it contains the diverging comment of the countersigning officer of 20 June 2010;

               —

               order FRONTEX to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 1 April 1997 by Société Anonyme de Traverses en Beton Armé (Sateba) against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-83/97)

text:
No C 166/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997                  works contract was awarded for the supply of monobloc
by Patrick Rousseaux, residing in Brussels, represented by             concrete sleepers on the basis of a qualification procedure
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for               devised by the SNCB . One of the grounds of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson               applicant's complaint is the fact that the rejection of its
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                             tender, for failure to meet technical requirements, was
                                                                       based on the misconception that the monobloc sleepers
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decided on by the SNCB and the duo-bloc sleepers offered
                                                                       by the applicant are not perfectly substitutable . According
                                                                       to the applicant company, the contested decision closing
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      the file endorsed that incorrect technical assessment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    The Commission based its decision not to proceed on the
                                                                       lack of any Community interest in bringing an action
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   against the Belgian State for failure to fulfil its obligations .
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    In support of its contentions, the applicant alleges a
                                                                       breach of essential procedural requirements, in that, first,
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           the Commission did not hear its views at any stage and,
                                                                       second, it did not specify the legislative basis for its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    decision not to proceed with an investigation. Specifically,
                                                                       in giving a decision on the contract in question, the
                                                                       Commission cannot rely in abstracto on Community law
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 relating to public works contracts without taking account
Case T-16/97 C ).                                                      of the rules governing competition . In that regard, the
                                                                       contested decision should be declared unlawful under
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  Article 86 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 90 (2 )
                                                                       thereof. The applicant stresses that the SNCB enjoys a
                                                                       monopoly for operation of the Belgian railway system,
                                                                       that it has been granted authority for type-approval of the
                                                                       equipment used in its network and that the technical
                                                                       specifications at issue in these proceedings are
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by Société Anonyme de                   unfavourable only to imported products .
Traverses en Béton Armé ( Sateba) against Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                       Finally, the applicant alleges an incorrect assessment of the
                          ( Case T-83/97)                              facts and a misuse of powers . It states in that connection
                            ( 97/C 166/45 )                            that, in the field of competition, where circumstances
                                                                       constituting an infringement exist, the Commission may
                 (Language of the case: French)                        impose a sanction of an economic nature on the
                                                                       undertakings concerned. In its view, it was only in order
An action against the Commission of the European                       to evade the application of Community law in this area
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      that the Commission adopted a decision not to proceed in
Instance on 1 April 1997 by Societe Anonyme de Traverses               respect of acts imputable to the SNCB, at the same time
en Beton Arme ( Sateba ), whose registered office is in                concluding that there was no Community interest in
Paris, represented by Jacques Manseau, of the Paris Bar,               taking proceedings against the Belgian State. However, by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       referring to the Belgian State rather than to the SNCB, the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                    defendant is endeavouring to make its decision
                                                                        unchallengeable by virtue of the settled case-law
                                                                        concerning the application of Article 169 of the Treaty.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
 should :
— annul Commission Decision of 20 January 1997,
     Reference No XV/B3/MM/(96 ) D/2312,
                                                                        Action brought on 3 April 1997 by Horeca-Wallonie
 — order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-85/97)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                97/C 166/46 )
 The applicant, a French company operating in the railway                              (Language of the case: French)
 infrastructure sector, contests the Commission decision
 closing the file on the complaint it lodged against Societe
 Nationale des Chemins de Fer Beiges ( SNCB ). That                     An action against the Commission of the European
 complaint concerned the conditions under which a public                Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-520/10: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/25

         Order of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission
   (Case T-520/10) (1)

   2013/C 164/42
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-398/94: Action brought on 30 December 1994 by Kahn Scheepvaart BV against Commission of the European Communities

text:
31 . 12. 94                          Official Journal of the European Communities                           No C 400/ 15
brought before the Court of First Instance of the              — take such further action as the Court may deem
European Communities on 28 December 1994 by Gerjet                  appropriate,
Meyenburg, Sudbrookmerland (Federal Republic of
Germany), represented by Bernd-Rudiger Bessau,                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Rechtsanwalt, Emden (Federal Republic of Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should :                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Order the defendants to pay to the applicant DM                The applicant, a Dutch private company which belongs
72 791,37 together with 8 % interest from 1 November           to the same group as Jumbo Shipping Company SA and
 1994.                                                         whose main activities consist of the listing and transpor
                                                               tation by sea of heavy loads, challenges the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:            Commission's decision approving the production aid to
                                                               be granted by Germany for the building of two heavy lift
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those       vessels .
in Case T-20 /94 .
                                                               The applicant submits that this State aid measure consists
                                                               of both a cash subsidy of seven percent of the price of
                                                               the vessels, granted on the basis of the regulations
                                                               regarding the continuance of the competition aid
                                                               programmes for the territory of the Federal Republic of
                                                               Germany and a special depreciation scheme under
                                                               paragraph 82 (f) of the Einkommensteuer-Durchfuh
                                                               rungsverordnung (Income Tax Implementation Regu
Action brought on 30 December 1994 by Kahn                     lation). The effects of the subsidy caused by paragraph
Scheepvaart BV against Commission of the European              82 (f) EStDV are much higher than the two percent that
                      Communities
                                                               would be permitted under Council Directive
                    (Case T-398/94)                            90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 (the 'Seventh
                     (94/C 400/06)                             Directive').
              (Language of the case: English)                  The applicant submits that by adopting the contested
                                                               Decision, the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First              — infringed the Seventh Directive, the effect of the
Instance of the European Communities on 30 December                German scheme being clearly above the nine percent
1994 by Kahn Scheepvaart BV, represented by Thomas                 ceiling permitted under Article 4 of the Seventh
Jestaedt, Rechtsanwalt of Diisseldorf, of the law firm             Directive,
Droste, and T. R. Ottervanger of the Rotterdam Bar, of
Loeff Claeys Verbeke, with an address for service in           — breached obligations under Article 93 (2) of the EC
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67, Rue                Treaty to open formal review proceedings in respect
Ermesinde.
                                                                   of aid schemes whose compatibility with the common
The applicant claims that the Court should :                       market is in doubt, and
— annul the Decision of the Commission of the 25               — breached obligations under Article 190 of the EC
    October 1994 on aid granted by the German                      Treaty, in so far as it has failed to give proper
     Government for the building of two vessels,                   grounds for the decision.


title: Judgment of the Court 25 July 2002 in Case C-50/00 P: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 — Common organisation of the market in oils and fats — Action for annulment — Person individually concerned — Effective judicial protection — Admissibility)

text:
C 233/4                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.9.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            incompatible with the common market and with Commission
                                                                                Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid
                                                                                granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                         successors, in so far as it declared the aid granted to Gursa,
                                                                                Migsa and Cunosa illegal and incompatible with the common
                                                                                market, and second, by failing to inform the Commission,
                             2 July 2002                                          within the prescribed period, of measures taken to implement
                                                                                Decision 1999/509 in so far as it declared aid granted to
                                                                                Indosa illegal and incompatible with the common market, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
in Case C-499/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain ( 1)                                   fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of
                                                                                those decisions;
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State                2.    For the rest, dismisses the Commission’s action;
aid — Aid granted to companies in the Magefesa group —
Commission Decisions 91/1/EEC and 1999/509/EC — Non-                        3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                            performance)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                          (2002/C 233/05)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                25 July 2002
In Case C-499/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Rozet and R. Vidal) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
R. Silva de Lapuerta): Application for a declaration that, by               in Case C-50/00 P: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v
failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures                               Council of the European Union ( 1)
necessary to comply with Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of
20 December 1989 concerning aids in Spain which the central
and several autonomous governments granted to Magefesa,                     (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 — Common
producer of domestic articles of stainless steel and small                  organisation of the market in oils and fats — Action for
electric appliances (OJ 1991 L 5, p. 18) and Commission                     annulment — Person individually concerned — Effective
Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid                                     judicial protection — Admissibility)
granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and
their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15), declaring that certain
aid to companies in the Magefesa group was granted unlawfully                                          (2002/C 233/06)
and is incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom
of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of those
decisions, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                                      in the European Court Reports)
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 July 2002, in which it:
1.    Declares that, first, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed      In Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (Agents:
      period, the necessary measures to comply with Commission              J. Ledesma Bartret and J. Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate): Appeal
      Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aids in              against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
      Spain which the central and several autonomous governments            Communities (Third Chamber) of 23 November 1999 in Case
      granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless       T-173/98 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [1999]
      steel and small electric appliances, in so far as it declared the     ECR II-3357, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
      aid granted to Industrias Domésticas SA (Indosa), Manufactu-          parties to the proceedings being: Council of the European
      ras Gur SA (Gursa), Manufacturas Inoxidables Gibraltar SA             Union (Agent: I. Díez Parra), supported by Commission of the
      (Migsa) and Cuberta del Norte SA (Cunosa) illegal and                 European Communities (Agents: J. Guerra Fernández and
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 233/5
M. Condou-Durande), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                 let, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von               Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,               11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 July               Article 49 EC, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect
2002, in which it:                                                         for family life, is to be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances
                                                                           such as those in the main proceedings, a refusal, by the Member State
                                                                           of origin of a provider of services established in that Member State
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                who provides services to recipients established in other Member States,
                                                                           of the right to reside in its territory to that provider’s spouse, who is a
2.    Orders Unión de Pequeños Agricultores to pay the costs;              national of a third country.
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
      its own costs.                                                       (1 ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
                           11 July 2002                                                                   11 July 2002
in Case C-60/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-62/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Mary Carpenter v                         the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)):
       Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)                      Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs &
                                                                                Excise ( 1)
(Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Directive
73/148/EEC — National of a Member State established in
                                                                           (Sixth VAT directive — National legislation retroactively
that State and providing services to persons established in
                                                                           curtailing a limitation period for repayment of sums unduly
other Member States — Right of residence in that State of a                paid — Compatibility with the principles of effectiveness
           spouse who is a national of a third country)
                                                                                and of the protection of legitimate expectations)
                         (2002/C 233/07)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/08)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-60/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a                  In Case C-62/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
court between Mary Carpenter and Secretary of State for the                (England and Wales) in the proceedings pending before that
Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 49 EC and                court between Marks & Spencer plc and Commissioners of
Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the                         Customs & Excise, on the interpretation of Community law on
abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within                 the recovery of sums unduly paid, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to                composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172,                D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
p. 14), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                   L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Cham-                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathe-              which it has ruled:


title: Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Evets v OHIM (DANELECTRO and QWIK TUNE) (Community trade mark — Community word mark DANELECTRO and Community figurative mark QWIK TUNE — Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting a request for renewal of the trade marks — Application for restitutio in integrum — Reformatio in pejus — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Article 61(2), second sentence of Article 73, and Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 63(2), second sentence of Article 75, and Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/62

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Evets v OHIM (DANELECTRO and QWIK TUNE)
   (Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Community word mark DANELECTRO and Community figurative mark QWIK TUNE - Failure to observe the time-limit for submitting a request for renewal of the trade marks - Application for restitutio in integrum - Reformatio in pejus - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Article 61(2), second sentence of Article 73, and Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 63(2), second sentence of Article 75, and Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/110
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evets Corp. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against two decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2007 (Cases R 603/2007-4 and R 604/2007-4), relating to an application for restitutio in integrum made by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Evets Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-25/07: Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/24

         Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission
   (Case T-25/07)
   (2007/C 69/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Iride and Iride Energia (Turin, Italy) (represented by: L.G. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola and C. Bazoli, avvocati)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Decision is void in so far as it classes the measures as State aid, and in so far as it suspends payment of the aid until such time as Italy has provided evidence that AEM Torino has refunded the aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 concerning tax relief for former municipal administrative bodies;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application lodged by Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA (‘the applicants’) concerns the Decision of 8 November 2006 by which the Commission closed the proceeding initiated pursuant to Article 88(2) EC to investigate the compatibility with Community law of a refund that Italy intends to grant to AEM Torino for stranded costs in the energy sector (1).
   The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities should declare that the Decision is void in so far as it classes as State aid the measures taken to reimburse AEM Torino in respect of the stranded costs incurred during the liberalisation of the energy sector, and in so far as it suspends payment of the aid until such time as Italy has provided the Commission with evidence that AEM Torino has not received the aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with Decision 2003/193/EC concerning tax relief for former municipalizzate [municipal administrative bodies] (‘the Tax Relief Decision’), or with evidence that AEM Torino has reimbursed, with interest, any such aid that it may have received.
   The application is based inter alia on the following main pleas:

               (a)

               The measure in question does not constitute State aid in that it was not financed through the use of State resources and does not accord the recipients gratuitous advantage.

               (b)

               The judgment in Deggendorf
                   (2) is not applicable in the present case. The Commission has failed, in particular, to show that the conditions that must be met — according to the principles that may be extracted from Deggendorf — in order for payment of the aid to be suspended, have in fact been met. (In particular, the Commission has not shown the potential cumulative effect of the new measures and the earlier measures.) In particular, the Commission has not explained how it is possible that cumulative effects can arise as a result of the aid which is the subject of the Tax Relief Decision, and measures like the stranded costs, which are designed merely to bring about equalisation, and thus the effects of which are exhausted in the past, enabling the costs incurred during the period when the market was regulated to be amortised in a manner similar to the manner in which the undertakings would have proceeded if the sector had not been liberalised before those costs had been fully amortised.

      (1)  OJ L 366, 21.12.2006, p. 62.

      (2)  Case C-355/95 TwD v Commission [1997] ECR I-2549.


title: Case T-79/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Cisco Systems and Messagenet v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/31

         Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Cisco Systems and Messagenet v Commission
   (Case T-79/12)
   2012/C 109/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Cisco Systems, Inc. (San José, United States of America), Messagenet SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and K. Jörgens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision C(2011) 7279 final of the Commission of 7 October 2011 (OJ C 341, 22.11.2011, p. 2) not to oppose the notified concentration between Microsoft Corporation and Skype Sarl and declaring it compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.6281) for breach of Articles 2 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the EC Merger Regulation) (1) or, alternatively, of Article 296 TFEU;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear its own costs, as well as those incurred by the applicants in connection with the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in holding that the merger would not raise any anti-competitive horizontal concerns in the consumer unified communications markets. In this connection, the applicants stress that the merger leads to combined market shares of more than 80 % in the narrowest possible market examined in the decision (video call services to consumers on Windows-based PC). Both the combination of powerful network effects accruing to the largest installed base of users and the merging company’s full control of the Windows Operating System and other adjacent applications will reinforce the dominant position and eliminate any incentive which the merged entity may have to offer interoperability with competing products;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the European Commission also committed a manifest error of assessment in holding that the merger undoubtedly did not raise any anti-competitive conglomerate effects in enterprise unified communications markets. In this connection, the applicants stress that given the increasing popularity of consumer unified communications services, enterprise customers wish to connect with customers using the tools of consumer unified communications. By expanding its established base of consumer unified communications customers, the merging company will have both the increased ability and the incentives to deny interoperability with competing enterprise communications products. The foreclosure effects will be reinforced by the pre-existing leading/dominant position already enjoyed by that company in adjacent markets, such as operating systems and enterprise application software products, e.g. Office and Outlook. In particular, the contested decision is inconsistent with the decision-making practice of the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union, in relation to the importance of network effects in IT markets and the need to ensure interoperability with a view to preserving effective consumer choice, when such network effects are in play;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging on a subsidiary basis

                           —

                           that the European Commission failed to comply with its duty to state sufficient reasons to justify the authorization of the merger in the first phase, without considering that commitments from the parties were necessary.

      (1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1


title: Case C-128/02 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 144/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 27
1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee                       thereof;
      notified by HDI on 30 October and 13 and 20 November
      2001;                                                               —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.    order HDI to pay damages amounting to EUR 44 556,84
      to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament in
      respect of additional insurance cover to replace the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood       The time-limit for transposition, extended by one year on
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared           account of the specific characteristics of Belgium’s electricity
      to HDI on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;          network, expired on 19 February 2000, but Belgium has not
                                                                          adopted all the requisite measures, particularly as regards the
                                                                          appointment of the network manager (as provided for in
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Article 10 of the Belgian Law on the organisation of the
                                                                          electricity market).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-123/02.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte
                                                                          against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between
                                                                          Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union
                                                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                             Belgium                                                              (Case C-128/02 P)
                         (Case C-126/02)                                                           (2002/C 144/34)
                         (2002/C 144/33)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002
                                                                          by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard
                                                                          Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before               Commission of the European Communities (1) was brought
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte, represented by Reinhard
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for            Freise, Rechtsanwalt and Notar, Salzkotten.
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         —     set aside the judgment under appeal;
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations         —     order the respondents to pay the appellant compensation,
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  quantified by him to be at least DEM 30 000, plus interest
      with Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament                        of 5 % per annum from 1 December 1989, for the
      and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning                         damage suffered by him as a result of the unlawful refusal
      common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), or               to grant him the reference delivery quantities for which
      at any rate by failing to communicate the same to the                     he applied.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     a)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9 % tea-extract and water
                                                                                and
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
      incorrectly found that the appellant’s claim was time-                        b)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9% tea-extract, 0,8 % citric
      barred. Even after the application had been lodged, the                             acid and water are not preparations with a basis of
      respondents had given the appellant a binding assurance                             extracts of tea?
      that — following the conclusion of certain test cases
      pending before the Court — they would make him a
      binding offer of compensation. The respondents were not                 2)    Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 (2) of
      entitled simply to disregard that assurance and plead that                    12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain
      the appellant’s claim was time-barred. The Court of First                     goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44,
      Instance also failed to take into account the fact that the                   p. 25) valid in respect of the products identified at
      appellant had not been officially informed of his legal                       points 2 and 3 of the Annex?
      rights.
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001, p. 1.
      incorrectly found that the appellant was denied a refer-                (2) OJ L 044 of 15.2.2001, p. 25.
      ence quantity on different grounds from those provided
      for by Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84 (2). In that
      respect the Court of First Instance failed to take account
      of, and evaluate, the totality of the issues raised in the
      proceedings.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
    general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
    of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products               (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court
    sector (OJ 1984 L 90 , p. 13).                                            of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V.
                                                                                against head of the Roosendaal Customs district
                                                                                (Case C-133/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/36)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
München by order of that Court of 27 February 2002 in
the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               München                                        European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof
                                                                              (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
                                                                              Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the
                           (Case C-130/02)                                    Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the
                           (2002/C 144/35)                                    Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:
                                                                              Does Article 9(1) of the Community Customs Code (1), read in
                                                                              conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) thereof, provide the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing binding
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-                       tariff information where they change the position adopted in
chen (Munich Finance Court) of 27 February 2002, received at                  it with regard to the interpretation of the legal provisions
the Court Registry on 9 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling                  applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned
in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                        even where the change is made within the six-year period
Nürnberg, Zoll- u. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                        referred to?
München on the following questions:
1)    Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of                           establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
      6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation                       19.10.1992, p. 1.).
      (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
      ture and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279,
      p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that mixtures of


title: Case T-251/99: Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Texaco Nederland B.V., Schreurs Oliemaatschappĳ B.V., Salland Oliemaatschappĳ B.V. and Nĳol Oliemaatschappĳ B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 20/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
— The relevant legislation and the public service contracts              Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the Tirrenia Group companies were notified to the
    Commission and authorised by the Commission, specifi-
    cally in the case of Law No 856/86 and by implication as             This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads
    regards the agreements between the State and those                   infringement of the principle of respect for the rights of the
    companies and the underlying legislation. For that reason,           defence, since it has been given no opportunity to put forward
    it is submitted that the rule in Lorenz, now embodied in             its views concerning the facts on which the decision is based.
    Article 4(6) of Regulation No 659/99, has been infringed.            For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments correspond
                                                                         to those in Case T-242/99.
— The essential features of the PSOs and the payments
    relating to them ante-date the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
    Finally, the applicants also allege misuse of powers,
    thorough failure to examine the case properly, and breach
    of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                         Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Texaco Nederland
                                                                         B.V., Schreurs Oliemaatschappij B.V., Salland Oliemaat-
                                                                         schappij B.V. and Nijol Oliemaatschappij B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Shell Nederland
Verkoopmaatschappij B.V. against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                                         (Case T-251/99)
                         (Case T-250/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/53)
                          (2000/C 20/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Texaco
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Nederland B.V., Schreurs Oliemaatschappij B.V., Salland Olie-
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Shell Neder-                  maatschappij B.V. and Nijol Oliemaatschappij B.V., respect-
land Verkoopmaatschappij B.V., of Rotterdam (Netherlands),               ively established in Rotterdam, Venlo, Hasselt and Nijmegen
represented by T.M. Snoep and B. van der Gaag, of the Hague              (Netherlands), represented by H.G. Sevenster and E.P. Jorrits-
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    ma, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                    bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
(a) order the Commission of the European Communities to                  (a) order the Commission of the European Communities to
    give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to              give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to
    its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)                     its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633                    concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633
    service stations in the region bordering Germany, and                     service stations in the region bordering Germany, and
    order the adoption of all such further measures as may be                 order the adoption of all such further measures as may be
    necessary;                                                                necessary;
(b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of               (b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of
    20 July 1999 [C(1999) 2539 final);                                        20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final);
(c) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               (c) order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-524/93 (1)
This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The pleas in law and                                      (2000/C 20/55)
main arguments are the same as those in Case T-250/99.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the register of Case T-524/93: Patrick Wall v Council of the
                                                                         European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties.
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Total Nederland                     (1) OJ C 319 of 26.11.1993.
B.V. and Fina Nederland B.V. against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                         (Case T-252/99)
                          (2000/C 20/54)                                 Removal from the register of Case T-195/94 and
                                                                                T-202/94 (1)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                 (2000/C 20/56)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                  (Language of the case: German)
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Total Neder-
land B.V. and Fina Nederland B.V., respectively established in           By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Rotterdam and The Hague (Netherlands), represented by                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and R. Wesseling, of the Hague Bar,               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             the register of Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm
M. Maître, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                Quiller and Johann Heusmann v Council of the European
                                                                         Union and Commission of the European Communities.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 9.7.1994 and C 218 of 6.8.1994.
(a) order the Commission of the European Communities to
     give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to
     its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633
     service stations in the region bordering Germany, and
     order the adoption of all such further measures as may be
     necessary;                                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-10/96 (1)
(b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of
                                                                                (2000/C 20/57)
     20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final);
(c) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The pleas in law and               Case T-10/96: Benjamin Laurence Lay v Council of the
main arguments are the same as those in Case T-250/99.                   European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.