title: Case C-371/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International BV (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 3(1)(e), third indent, and Article 3(3) — Sign — Shape which gives substantial value to goods — Use — Advertising campaigns — Attractiveness of a shape acquired prior to the date of application for registration on account of recognition of it as a distinctive sign)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International BV
   (Case C-371/06) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 3(1)(e), third indent, and Article 3(3) - Sign - Shape which gives substantial value to goods - Use - Advertising campaigns - Attractiveness of a shape acquired prior to the date of application for registration on account of recognition of it as a distinctive sign)
   (2007/C 269/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Benetton Group SpA

      Defendant: G-Star International BV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(e), third indent, of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Jeans whose distinctive sign is the features of working or motorcycling clothes with knee pads — Sign consisting of a shape which gives substantial value to the goods
   Operative part of the judgment
   The third indent of Article 3(1)(e) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the shape of a product which gives substantial value to that product cannot constitute a trade mark under Article 3(3) of that directive where, prior to the application for registration, it acquired attractiveness as a result of its recognition as a distinctive sign following advertising campaigns presenting the specific characteristics of the product in question.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-73/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2013 — T

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2013 — T
   (Case C-73/13)
   2013/C 147/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 82 of Presidential Decree No 115 of 30 May 2002 on legal aid in Italian law — insofar as it stipulates that the judicial authorities are to make an order for payment in respect of the fees and expenses of the defending council which complies with the standard scale of lawyers’ fees in such a way that, they may not, in any event, be greater than the average amounts payable under the scales of fees in force relating to fees, court fees and emoluments, bearing in mind the nature of the professional commitment with reference to the impact of the tasks undertaken in relation to the procedural status of the defendant — comply with Article 47(3) of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights] of the European Union, which stipulates that legal aid is to be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice?

               2.

               Does Article 82 of Presidential Decree No 115 of 30 May 2002 on legal aid in Italian law — insofar as it stipulates that the judicial authorities are to make an order for payment in respect of the fees and expenses of the defending council which complies with the standard scale of lawyers’ fees in such a way that, they may not, in any event, be greater than the average amounts payable under the scales of fees in force relating to fees, court fees and emoluments, bearing in mind the nature of the professional commitment with reference to the impact of the tasks undertaken in relation to the procedural status of the defendant — comply with Article 6 the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as transposed into Community law by Article 52(3) of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights] of the European Union and by Article 6 [TFEU]?


title: Case T-221/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2006 — Belgium v Commission (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Arable crops — Check on areas based on a system of aerial orthoimagery (GIS) — Difference between the area declared and the area resulting from the GIS system — Administrative check and inspection on site — Loss to EAGGF)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2006 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-221/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Arable crops - Check on areas based on a system of aerial orthoimagery (GIS) - Difference between the area declared and the area resulting from the GIS system - Administrative check and inspection on site - Loss to EAGGF)
   (2006/C 224/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: initially, A. Goldman and E. Dominkovits, Agents, subsequently M. Wimmer, Agent, assisted by H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction of 2 % of the expenses declared by Belgium in respect of arable crops.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004 (Case C-176/04).


title: Case T-325/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love — Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love)
   (Case T-325/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 070/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Moisescu and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Budapest)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 1369/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató and Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case C-24/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Three-dimensional mark — Three-dimensional shape of a light-brown sweet — Distinctive character)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 — August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-24/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Three-dimensional mark - Three-dimensional shape of a light-brown sweet - Distinctive character)
   (2006/C 212/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr, H. Wrage-Molkenthin and T. Reher, Lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2004 in Case T-396/02 Storck v OHIM, whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the refusal to register a three-dimensional trade mark consisting of the shape of a light-brown sweet for confectionery within Class 30 — Distinctive character of a trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.


title: Case T-277/09: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Trasys v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/82

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Trasys v Commission
   (Case T-277/09) (1)

   2013/C 225/185
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case C-80/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 February 2013 — ACO Industries Tábor s. r. o. v Appellate Tax Directorate (Odvolací finanční ředitelství)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 February 2013 — ACO Industries Tábor s. r. o. v Appellate Tax Directorate (Odvolací finanční ředitelství)
   (Case C-80/13)
   2013/C 147/14
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Supreme Administrative Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ACO Industries Tábor s. r. o.

      Defendant: Appellate Tax Directorate

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 18, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude provisions under which an employer established in one Member State is obliged to make advance payments of tax on the income of workers (nationals of another Member State) temporarily assigned to the employer by a temporary work agency established in another Member State through a branch established in the first Member State?

               2.

               Do Articles 18, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude provisions under which the basis of assessment of such workers is set at a flat rate of at least 60 % of the amount invoiced by the temporary work agency in cases where the intermediation fee is included in the amount invoiced?

               3.

               If the answer to the first or second question is yes in the affirmative, is it possible, in a situation such as the present case, to restrict the said fundamental freedoms for reasons of public policy, public security or public health, or for the effectiveness of fiscal supervision?


title: Case T-140/07: Order of the General Court of 4 February 2011 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics v Commission

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/20

         Order of the General Court of 4 February 2011 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics v Commission
   (Case T-140/07) (1)

   2011/C 113/40
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber (extended composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-122/10: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2011 — USFSPEI and Others v Council

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/19

         Order of the General Court of 28 February 2011 — USFSPEI and Others v Council
   (Case T-122/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/41
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-257/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône (France) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Anouthani Mlalali v CAF des Bouches-du-Rhône

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône (France) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Anouthani Mlalali v CAF des Bouches-du-Rhône
   (Case C-257/13)
   2013/C 207/43
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anouthani Mlalali

      Defendant: CAF des Bouches-du-Rhône

      Question referred

   Must Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 be interpreted as precluding the requirements laid down by Articles L.512 and D.512-2 of the Code de la sécurité sociale français (French Social Security Code)?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2004 in Case T-193/04 R, Hans-Martin Tillack v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — Application for interim relief and for suspension of operation of a measure)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/36

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 October 2004
   in Case T-193/04 R, Hans-Martin Tillack v Commission of the European Communities
   (Proceedings for interim measures - Application for interim relief and for suspension of operation of a measure)
   (2005/C 6/72)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-193/04 R: Hans-Martin Tillack, represented by I. Forrester QC, T. Bosly, C. Arhold, N. Flandin, J. Herrlinger and J. Siaens, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Docksey and C. Ladenburger, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of any further implementation or action pursuant to the alleged complaint of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 11 February 2004 to the Belgian and German judicial authorities and for an order that OLAF refrain from obtaining, inspecting, examining or hearing the contents of any documents and information in the possession of the Belgian and German judicial authorities following the search of the applicant's home and office carried out on 19 March 2004 — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 15 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-138/05: Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Impetus Consultants

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/36

         Action brought on 23 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against Impetus Consultants
   (Case T-138/05)
   (2005/C 182/69)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the company, Impetus Consultants, was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Triandafilou, assisted by N. Kostikas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 235 655,21 comprising EUR 160 380,35, by way of capital, and EUR 75 274,86, in respect of interest for late payment, as from the due date on the basis of each debit note;

               —

               order the defendant to pay as from 15 March 2005 until full settlement the debt arising out of the ‘COP 493 — Invite’ contract daily interest in the amount of EUR 41,93; in regard to the debt arising out of the ‘TR 1006 — Ausias’ contract daily interest in the amount of EUR 1,66 and in regard to the ‘V 2043 — Artis’ contract daily interest of EUR 1,01;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the European Commission, entered into three contracts with the defendant in the context of Community framework programmes for research and development. Those contracts were more specifically:

               —

               ‘COP 493 — Invite’, which specifically concerned the carrying out of a project under the title ‘telematics for internal navigation’ and was to be implemented within 24 months as from 30 December 1994. The defendant was a member and the co-ordinator of the relevant group.

               —

               ‘TR 1006 — Ausias’, which specifically concerned the carrying out of a project under the title ‘Αdvanced telematic systems for integrated transport in conurbations’ and was to be implemented within 23 months as from 30 December 1995. The defendant was a member of the relevant group.

               —

               ‘V 2043 — Artis’, which concerned the carrying out of a project under the title ‘Αdvanced telematic systems for road transport in Spain’ and was to be implemented within 12 months as from 1 January 1992. The defendant was a member of the relevant group.

         In all those cases it was provided that the Commission would make a financial contribution to the relevant project under the terms laid down in each agreement. In respect of each agreement the Commission paid to the defendant advances on its financial contribution.
   Following financial checks, the Commission found that the defendant was using only a part of the monies paid over to it for the purposes of the relevant project. Specifically:

               —

               Under the ‘COP 493 — Invite’ contract the Commission paid to the defendant as the group coordinator an advance in the amount of EUR 257 400. The defendant passed on to the other participants only the amount of EUR 79 062,70 and retained the amount of EUR 178 337,30 of which only the amount of EUR 42 000 was used for the actual programme. The Commission has issued a debit note in the amount of EUR 136 037,30 against the defendant.

               —

               Under the ‘TR 1006 — Ausias’ contract the Commission paid to the group in respect of the period during which the defendant was a member of it an advance in the amount of EUR 78 341,91. The Commission discovered that only the amount of EUR 63 229,63 had been used by the defendant for the actual programme and has issued a debit note in the amount of EUR 15 112,28 against the defendant.

               —

               Under the ‘V 2043 — Artis’ contract the defendant, as a member of the relevant association, received from the Commission an advance in the amount of EUR 62 621,86. The Commission adjudged that only the amount of EUR 53 391,09 had been used by the defendant for carrying out the actual programme and has issued a debit note in the amount of EUR 9 320,77 against the defendant.

         By its action the Commission seeks repayment of the abovementioned amounts owed, together with interest thereon, in accordance with the law applicable to each contract, that is to say, in the case of the first contract, Greek law and, in the case of the other two contracts, Spanish law.


title: Case C-73/05: Action brought on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/24

         Action brought on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-73/05)
   (2005/C 82/48)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by having failed to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, (1) and/or by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 1 August 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 195 of 1 August 2000, p. 41.


title: Case T-72/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/37

         Action brought on 15 February 2016 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)
   (Case T-72/16)
   (2016/C 118/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY mobile’ — Application for registration No 7 213 424

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 53/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 6 November 2014 in Opposition No. B 1485137;

               —

               accept for registration the CTM Application No 007213424;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity of the services covered by the marks; and

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier mark and the Applicant’s Mark.


title: Case C-372/11 P: Appeal brought on 14 July 2011 by Power-One Italy SpA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-489/08 Power-One Italy SpA v European Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/12

         Appeal brought on 14 July 2011 by Power-One Italy SpA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-489/08 Power-One Italy SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-372/11 P)
   2011/C 282/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Power-One Italy SpA (represented by: A. Giussani and R. Giuffrida, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-489/09 and, accordingly:

                           —

                           Declare that the European Commission acted in breach of Article 10(2) of Regulation 1655/2000, (1) Article 14 of the SAP (2) and the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

                           —

                           declare, in so far as the state of the proceedings so permits, that there is a causal link between the Commission’s conduct and the loss that has been sustained and continues to be sustained by Power-One Italy and, accordingly, order the European Union, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU (formerly Article 235 EC), to compensate Power-One Italy for all the loss sustained, assessed at EUR 2 876 188,99 or the cost incurred in respect of the PNEUMA project, as evidenced by the documents annexed to the appeal, which are in any event already in the Commission’s possession, and relied on in the proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, Power-One Italy alleges, first, infringement of the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and that the statement of reasons was inadequate and contradictory, with reference to the claim alleging abuse of process.
   The General Court stated, at paragraph 47 of the order under appeal, that the appellant could have derived a greater advantage from annulment of the Commission’s decision in respect of the sums reimbursed, corresponding to the recovery of the entire financial assistance provided for the project at issue and that ‘the payment of such a sum by way of compensation may be regarded as being closely connected to the annulment of the decision in question’, thus setting out its reasons in relation to the submissions alleging abuse of process. The General Court therefore arbitrarily split the appellant’s claim, separating the substantive unity of the acts which made up the conduct giving rise to the loss from the loss-causing event, represented by the overall expenses incurred. Adequate reasons were therefore not given for upholding the objection raised by the Commission.
   The second ground on which the appeal is based alleges breach of the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, misapplication of the rules governing the burden of proof and obtaining evidence and inadequate and contradictory reasoning as regards the claims relating to residual damage.
   Paragraph 55 of the General Court’s decision states that ‘the application does not set out the nature or scope of the residual damage which the applicant claims to have suffered’ and that ‘the application does not give any indication of the grounds on which the applicant claims that the residual damage is attributable to the withdrawal by the Commission of the financing for the project at issue’. It should be noted in that regard that the loss sustained by the appellant company can only be said to be self-evident, since the financing in question was intended to perform a specific function, which can be identified in the project undertaken, and the withdrawal of the financing could only give rise to costs being incurred which, in the absence of the funding, the appellant would not have afforded, Those arguments, previously set out in the observations relating to the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission (the appellant company’s balance sheet having been, moreover, annexed to those observations), were not considered by the General Court, which confined itself to challenging the alleged lack of particulars relating to the loss sustained.
   Lastly, the appellant alleges breach of the general legal principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, misapplication of the rules governing the burden of proof and obtaining of evidence and failure to assess facts which would have had a bearing on the outcome of the case, by reference to the causal link.
   At paragraph 57 of the order under appeal, in relation to the claims concerning the causal link, the General Court stated that the appellant company ‘does not provide any indication as to the effect of the conduct in question on the fact that the applicant bore the cost of project at issue in excess of the maximum amount committed by the Commission’. According to the appellant, it is clear that in the present case the General Court carried out a substantively inaccurate assessment of the facts on the file submitted in the proceedings. In essence, the General Court distorted the evidence put forward by denying the existence of a clear causal link between the Commission’s conduct and the loss sustained by the appellant. Thus, in stating the grounds for its decision, the General Court failed to consider circumstances already relied on in the application at first instance or the observations subsequently submitted. It is clear from the appellant’s submissions in particular that the alleged failure on the part of the Commission is of an ancillary, not an essential nature, and consists in a delay in supplementing the documentation in relation to a project that is fully completed.

      (1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (OJ 2000 L 192, p. 1).

      (2)  Standard Administrative Provisions annexed to the Grant Agreement.


title: Case C-460/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Hewlett-Packard GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2011 — Hewlett-Packard GmbH v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)
   (Case C-460/11)
   2011/C 362/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hewlett-Packard GmbH

      Defendant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

      Questions referred

   The following questions concerning the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are hereby referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

               1.

               In interpreting national law, is account to be taken of the directive in respect of events which occurred after the directive entered into force on 22 June 2001, but before it became applicable on 22 December 2002?

               2.

               Do reproductions effected by means of printers constitute reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of the directive?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered affirmatively: can the requirements laid down in the directive relating to fair compensation for exceptions or limitations to the right of reproduction under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, having regard to the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 20 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, be fulfilled also where the appropriate reward must be paid not by the manufacturers, importers and traders of the printers but by the manufacturers, importers and traders of another device or several other devices of a chain of devices capable of making the relevant reproductions?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case T-441/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2007 — IVG Immobilien AG v OHIM (I) (Community trade mark — Figurative signs — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2007 — IVG Immobilien AG v OHIM (I)
   (Case T-441/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative signs - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 170/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: IVG Immobilien AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: A. Okonek and U. Karpenstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2005 (Case R 559/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign I as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 September 2005 (Case R 559/2004-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by IVG Immobilien AG.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-424/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Nexus Europe (Ireland) v Commission (Arbitration clause — Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Macro-Economic and Urban Trends in Europe’s Information Society (MUTEIS) Project — Loss caused by amending a contract in relation to the system for reimbursing costs incurred by a participant in the project)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Nexus Europe (Ireland) v Commission
   (Case T-424/08) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Macro-Economic and Urban Trends in Europe’s Information Society (MUTEIS) Project - Loss caused by amending a contract in relation to the system for reimbursing costs incurred by a participant in the project)
   2010/C 179/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nexus Europe (Ireland) Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Noonan, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Sauka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the Commission obtaining certain amendments to the contract MUTEIS IST-2000-30117, concluded on 31 October 2001.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nexus Europe (Ireland) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case C-91/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Wall AG v Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service GmbH (FES) (Service concessions — Award procedure — Obligation of transparency — Subsequent replacement of a subcontractor)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Wall AG v Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service GmbH (FES)
   (Case C-91/08) (1)

   (Service concessions - Award procedure - Obligation of transparency - Subsequent replacement of a subcontractor)
   2010/C 148/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wall AG

      Defendants: Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service GmbH (FES)

      Itervener: Deutsche Städte Medien (DSM) GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC, the principles of transparency and equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination, Article 2(1)(b) and (2) of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ 1980 L 195, p. 35), as amended by Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ 2000 L 193, p. 75), and Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Award of service concessions — Concept of public undertaking — Consequences for performance of the contract of failure to comply with the obligation of transparency on a subsequent change of subcontractor

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where amendments to the provisions of a service concession contract are materially different in character from those on the basis of which the original concession contract was awarded, and are therefore such as to demonstrate the intention of the parties to renegotiate the essential terms of the contract, all necessary measures must be taken, in accordance with the national legal system of the Member State concerned, to restore the transparency of the procedure, which may extend to a new award procedure. If need be, a new award procedure should be organised in a manner appropriate to the specific features of the service concession involved, and should ensure that an undertaking located in another Member State has access to sufficient information on that concession before it is awarded.

               2.

               Where an undertaking which is the holder of a concession concludes a contract for services within the scope of a concession it has been awarded by a regional or local authority, the obligation of transparency deriving from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and from the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality does not apply if that undertaking

                           —

                           was set up by the regional or local authority for the purpose of waste disposal and street cleaning but also operates in the market,

                           —

                           belongs to that regional or local authority to the extent of a 51 % holding, but decisions of shareholders can be taken only by a three-quarters majority of votes at a general meeting of the company,

                           —

                           has only a quarter of the members of its supervisory board, including the chairman, appointed by the regional or local authority, and

                           —

                           obtains more than half its turnover from bilateral contracts for waste disposal and street cleaning in the territory of that regional or local authority, which reimburses itself by means of municipal taxes on its residents.

               3.

               The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality enshrined in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the consequent obligation of transparency do not require the national authorities to terminate a contract or the national courts to make a restraining order in every case of an alleged breach of that obligation in connection with the award of service concessions. It is for the domestic legal system to regulate the legal procedures for safeguarding the rights which individuals derive from that obligation in such a way that those procedures are no less favourable that similar domestic procedures and do not make the exercise of those rights practically impossible or excessively difficult. The obligation of transparency flows directly from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, which have direct effect in the domestic legal systems of the Member States and take precedence over any contrary provision of national law.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.


title: Case C-193/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Quick Restaurants SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark containing the word QUICKY — Opposition of holder of earlier national word marks QUICKIES — Likelihood of confusion — Overall assessment)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Quick Restaurants SA
   (Case C-193/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark containing the word ‘QUICKY’ - Opposition of holder of earlier national word marks QUICKIES - Likelihood of confusion - Overall assessment)
   (2007/C 269/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (represented by: D. Masson, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent), Quick Restaurants SA (represented by E. De Gryse, F. de Visscher and D. Moreau, avocats)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-74/04 Nestlé v OHIM, intervener: Quick Restaurants SA., dismissing the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2003 (Case R 922/2001-2) concerning opposition proceedings in which the parties were Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Quick Restaurants SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 22 February 2006 in Case T-74/04 Nestlé v OHIM-Quick (QUICKY) to the extent that, contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, the Court did not assess the visual similarity of the signs at issue when relying on the overall impression given by them;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165 of 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-415/05 P: Appeal brought on  23 November 2005  by Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber (Extended Composition)) of  21 September 2005  in Case T-306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/11

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber (Extended Composition)) of 21 September 2005 in Case T-306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-415/05 P)
   (2006/C 48/23)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber (Extended Composition)) of 21 September 2005 in Case T-306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v the Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation, Spånga (Sweden), represented by Leif Silbersky and Thomas Olsson, lawyers.
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005 in Case T-306/01,

               2.

               annul Regulation (EC) No 881/2002,

               3.

               order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the actions before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in finding that the Council was competent to adopt Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC. In addition, they submit as follows:
   The Court of First Instance erred in finding that Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 fulfils the requirement under Article 249 EC that it be of general application.
   The Court of First Instance wrongly limited its assessment of whether the applicants' fundamental rights had been infringed by Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 merely to considering the question whether the Security Council resolution is compatible with the superior rules of international law falling within the ambit of jus cogens. The Court of First Instance has not assessed whether the regulation was valid in accordance with Community law or whether the Security Council resolution was implemented pursuant to Community law and national laws.
   The Court of First Instance erred in finding that neither the applicants' rights of defence nor right to an effective legal remedy were infringed by Regulation (EC) No 881/2002.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2001 in Case T-350/00 R: Free Trade Foods NV v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — Safeguard measures — Sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin — Urgency)

text:
C 161/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           2.6.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 March 2001
                         of 6 March 2001                                 in Case T-298/00: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen
                                                                         pour le développement de la formation professionnelle
                                                                                (Cedefop) (1)
in Case T-187/00: Gödecke AG v Office for Harmonisation                  (Officials — Action which has become devoid of purpose —
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                No need to adjudicate)
                            (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/40)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of                                           (Language of the case: French)
the application for a Community trade mark — No need to
                            adjudicate)
                                                                         In Case T-298/00: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the Council
                                                                         of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and V. Peere, avocats, with an address
                         (2001/C 161/39)                                 for service in Luxembourg, against Centre européen pour le
                                                                         développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop)
                                                                         (Agent: B. Wägenbour) — application for annulment of the
                                                                         implied rejection of a claim for payment of a re-installation
                                                                         allowance — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                         composed of P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
                  (Language of the case: English)                        J.D. Cooke, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order on
                                                                         12 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action;
In Case T-187/00: Gödecke AG, established in Freiburg im
Breisgau, Germany, represented by W. Schmid and A. Schaben-              2.    Cedefop shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the
berger, Rechtsanwälte, against Office for Harmonisation in the                 applicant.
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
O. Montalto and J. Miranda de Sousa) intervener before the               (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.00.
Court of First Instance: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd,
established in Jerusalem, (Israel), represented by G. Farrington,
Solicitor — appeal against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2000 (Case R 501/1999-
1), notified to the applicant on 17 May 2000, relating
to opposition proceedings between Gödecke AG and Teva                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd — the Court of First Instance                                           INSTANCE
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili
and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 6 March 2001, the operative part of which is as                                     of 1 February 2001
follows:
                                                                         in Case T-350/00 R: Free Trade Foods NV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
1.   There is no need to adjudicate.
                                                                         (Interlocutory proceedings — Safeguard measures — Sugar
                                                                         sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin —
                                                                                Urgency)
2.   The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 161/41)
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.00.                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         In Case T-350/00 R: Free Trade Foods NV, having its registered
                                                                         office in Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles), represented by M. Slot-
                                                                         boom and R.J. van Agteren, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. Van der Hauwaert) —
 ---pagebreak--- 2.6.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 161/19
application for suspension of operation of Commission Regu-                 Proprietor of an oppos-        Orsem Sarl, Neuilly sur Seine,
lation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000 introducing                        ing mark or of an oppos-       France
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries                  ing sign:
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64), or for                Opposing mark or sign:         The Danish mark PREDONIUM,
any other interim measure to protect the interests of the                                                  the Greek mark PREDONIUM, the
applicant — the President of the Court of First Instance, made                                             Swedish mark PREDONIUM and
an order on 1 February 2001, the operative part of which is as                                             the United Kingdom mark PRE-
follows:                                                                                DONIUM for goods in Class 5
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;                      Decision of the Oppo-          opposition upheld and appli-
                                                                            sition Division:               cation rejected
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                            Appeal:
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              infringement of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 on the Community
                                                                                trade mark (Article 8(1)(b)) — no
                                                                                likelihood of confusion
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Phar-
ma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                           (Case T-10/01)
                          (2001/C 161/42)
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with                  Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the            Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of
                   application is drafted: German)                                             the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                        (Case T-49/01)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Pharma AG, Berlin (Germany),                                             (2001/C 161/43)
represented by Robert Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwalt. The other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
Orsem Sarl., Neuilly sur Seine (France).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2000 by the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation                European Communities on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in                   Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited, represented by Mark Clough QC
      appeal No R 586/1999-2;                                               and Julian Ellison, of Ashurst Morris Crisp.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     declare, pursuant to Article 232 (ex 175) of the EC Treaty
                                                                                that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under
Applicant for the Com-          Lichtwer Pharma AG                                the Treaty by failing to define its position on the
munity mark:                                                                      applicant’s complaint dated 29 February 2000 against
                                                                                Brittany Ferries, and/or at least that part of the complaint
Trade mark applied for:         the oral mark ‘SEDONIUM’ —                        dealing with the period up to 1995 outside the scope of
                                application No 312 447 for goods                  the Case C-31/98 procedure, and in particular by failing
                                in Class 5 (including medicinal                   to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 88(2)
                                products)                                         (ex 93(2)) of the EC Treaty;


title: Case C-488/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — L & D SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Julius Sämann Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and 73 — Figurative mark Aire Limpio — Community, national and international figurative marks representing a fir tree with various names — Opposition by the proprietor — Partial refusal to register — Inference of the particularly distinctive character of the earlier mark from evidence relating to another mark)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — L & D SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Julius Sämann Ltd
   (Case C-488/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and 73 - Figurative mark ‘Aire Limpio’ - Community, national and international figurative marks representing a fir tree with various names - Opposition by the proprietor - Partial refusal to register - Inference of the particularly distinctive character of the earlier mark from evidence relating to another mark)
   (2008/C 223/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: L & D SA (represented by: S. Miralles Miravet, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent), Julius Sämann Ltd (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2006 in Case T-168/04 L & D SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Julius Sämann Ltd, by which the Court dismissed an application for partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2004 (Case R 326/2003-2) in respect of opposition proceedings between Julius Sämann Ltd and L&D SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders L & D SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case C-323/13: Action brought on 13 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/21

         Action brought on 13 June 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-323/13)
   2013/C 252/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, since part of the municipal waste going to the landfills of the Rome SubATO (sotto ambito territoriale ottimale; the subdivision of the Optimal Territorial Ambit), including the Malagrotta landfill and those of the Latina SubATO, does not undergo treatment including a proper sorting of the various fractions of the waste and the stabilisation of the organic fraction, and since an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations, which takes account of the best available technology, has not been created in Lazio, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(a) of Directive 1999/31/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Directive 1999/31/EC and with Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC, (2) and under Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 1999/31/EC expired on 16 July 2001.
   The period for transposing Directive 2008/98/EC expired on 12 December 2010.

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ L 182, 16.7.1999 p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008 p. 3).


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 June 2003 in Case C-112/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republic of Austria (Free movement of goods — Restriction resulting from actions of individuals — Obligations of the Member States — Decision not to prohibit a demonstration by environmental protesters which resulted in the complete closure of the Brenner motorway for almost 30 hours — Justification — Fundamental rights — Freedom of expression and freedom of assembly — Principle of proportionality)

text:
2.8.2003                EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 184/1
                                                                             I
                                                                       (Information)
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          The fact that the authorities of a Member State did not ban a
                                                                                demonstration in circumstances such as those of the main case is not
                                                                                incompatible with Articles 30 and 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                           of 12 June 2003                                       amendment, Articles 28 EC and 29 EC), read together with Article 5
                                                                                of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC).
in Case C-112/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                (1) OJ C 163, 10.6.2000.
the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Eugen Schmidberger,
Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republic of
                              Austria (1)
(Free movement of goods — Restriction resulting from
actions of individuals — Obligations of the Member States
— Decision not to prohibit a demonstration by environ-
mental protesters which resulted in the complete closure of
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Brenner motorway for almost 30 hours — Justification
— Fundamental rights — Freedom of expression and
      freedom of assembly — Principle of proportionality)                                                   (Sixth Chamber)
                           (2003/C 184/01)                                                                  of 12 June 2003
                                                                                in Case C-229/00: Commission of the European Commu-
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                nities v Republic of Finland (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                      the European Court Reports)                                89/105/EEC — Failure to apply the procedure prescribed in
                                                                                Article 6 of that directive to decisions determining the
                                                                                categories of medicinal products qualifying for higher-rate
                                                                                cover — Failure to provide objective and verifiable grounds
In Case C-112/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                               for negative decisions)
EC by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und                                                   (2003/C 184/02)
Planzüge and Republic of Austria, on the interpretation of
Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-                                           (Language of the case: Finnish)
ment, Articles 28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC) read together with
Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), and on the
conditions for liability of a Member State for damage caused to                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
individuals by a breach of Community law, the Court,                                                   the European Court Reports)
composed        of:     G.C.     Rodríguez         Iglesias,    President,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.                     In Case C-229/00, Commission of the European Communities
N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-                      (Agents: I. Koskinen et H. Støvlbæk) v Republic of Finland
cate General; H.A. Rühl (Principal Administrator), Registrar, has                (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin): Application for a declaration
given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                         that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative


title: Case T-384/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment — Right to effective judicial protection — Claim for damages)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council
      (Case T-384/11) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Claim for damages)
      (2015/C 016/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. (Ispahan, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by A. Vitro and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, and subsequently by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and I. Gurov, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for (i) annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for damage.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls, in so far as they concern Safa Nicu Sepahan Co.:

                              —

                              point 19 of Part I.B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

                              —

                              point 61 of Part I.B of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

                  2.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to pay Safa Nicu Sepahan compensation of EUR 50 000 in respect of the non-material damage sustained by the latter;

                  3.

                  Orders that the compensation to be paid to Safa Nicu Sepahan be paid with default interest, as from the delivery of the present judgment to full payment of that compensation, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

                  4.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  5.

                  Orders the Council to bear its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief and to pay half the costs incurred by Safa Nicu Sepahan in both those proceedings; orders Safa Nicu Sepahan to bear half the costs it has incurred in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.

         (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-297/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nottingham Magistrates' Court (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 30 June 1999, in the case of the Vehicle Inspectorate against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J. Farmer 3) C.J. Burley and 4) B. Denman

text:
C 281/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
— Infringement of Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC: the              preliminary ruling in the case of the Vehicle Inspectorate
     existing management plans do not contain any specific           against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J. Farmer 3) C.J. Burley
     chapter relating to packaging waste.                            and 4) B. Denman on the following question:
                                                                     Are the requirements in Articles 15(2) and (3) of Council
( 1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.                                   Regulation 3821/85 (1) for a driver to record ‘all other periods
( 2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
( 3) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.                                  of work’ and ‘breaks in work and daily rest periods’ on the
( 4) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                  vehicle record sheet to be construed so that those terms
                                                                     include:
                                                                     (i) a period of time spent travelling to take over a vehicle
                                                                           which is subject to the requirement to install and use
                                                                           vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out
                                                                           in Category A above i.e.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nottingham                       a) time spent travelling pursuant to the instructions of
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), by order of that                          the employer or
court of 30 June 1999, in the case of the Vehicle
Inspectorate against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J.                   b) time (forming part of the daily or weekly rest period
            Farmer 3) C.J. Burley and 4) B. Denman                             following the last period of work) during which the
                                                                               employee travels at a time and in a manner of his own
                                                                               choosing.
                         (Case C-297/99)
                                                                     (ii) a period of time spent performing driving or other duties
                         (1999/C 281/23)                                   which are exempt from the requirement to install and use
                                                                           vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     under Category B above.
European Communities by an order of the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) of 30 June 1999, which           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on
was received at the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for                  recording equipment in road transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.85, p. 8).


title: Case C-470/00 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2000 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others and the European Parliament

text:
C 79/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.3.2001
(b) If that question is answered in the negative: Does the first               (c)   a national central bank,
      half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of Council
      Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the                          (d) a statutory body representing its members’ interests,
      coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of review pro-                    (e)   a partially State-controlled undertaking which is
      cedures to the award of public supply and public                               operated for profit?
      works contracts require an interpretation of the national
      legislation to the effect that the court (the independent          2.    If the answer to at least part of the above question is in
      body) clarifies of its own motion, without specific                      the affirmative:
      assertions (and certainly without relevant offers of evi-
      dence) made by one of the parties, whether the invitation                Are the provisions precluding the abovementioned
      to tender in question is not an individual project, but                  national rules directly applicable, in the sense that persons
      merely a part-project and — in the event that the latter is              obliged to disclose data may rely on them to prevent the
      the case — whether the overall project has an estimated                  application of conflicting national rules?
      contract value of more than EUR 5 million, or is such a
      view prohibited precisely because the onus of proof and
      obligation to produce evidence imposed on the party
      constitutes the essential difference between a procedure in
      which both sides are heard and inquisitorial proceedings?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 22 December 2000 by the European
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                         Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 October
                                                                         2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99,
                                                                         T-84/99 and T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others
                                                                                and the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case C-470/00 P)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verfassungsge-                                           (2001/C 79/23)
richtshof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000 in the
case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktge-                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
meinde Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich,                       by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
5. Oesterreichische Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener                        European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and
Neustadt, 7. Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luft-                   T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others and the European
                           verkehrs-AG                                   Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 December 2000 by the Euro-
                                                                         pean Parliament, represented by A. Caiola and G. Ricci, acting
                         (Case C-465/00)                                 as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (2001/C 79/22)                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         26 October 2000 in Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 Carlo
European Communities by order of the Verfassungsgerichts-                      Ripa di Meana and Leoluca Orlando and the European
hof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000, received at the                     Parliament;
Court Registry on 28 December 2000 for a preliminary ruling
in the case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer             2.    in consequence, declare the applications of the said
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktgemein-                     applicants at first instance inadmissible and unfounded,
de Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich, 5. Oesterreichi-                and
sche Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener Neustadt, 7. Austrian
Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG on the following              3.    order the applicants at first instance to pay the whole of
questions:                                                                     the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First
                                                                               Instance and the Court of Justice.
1.    Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
      on data protection, to be interpreted as precluding
      national rules which require a State body to collect and           Pleas in law and main arguments
      pass on data on income for the purpose of publishing the
      names and income of employees of:                                  The European Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in
                                                                         support of its appeal, two of which relate to admissibility and
      (a)   a regional or local authority,                               the third to the substance, the last being subdivided into
                                                                         various parts and supported by a number of legal arguments.
      (b) a broadcasting organisation governed by public law,            Its grounds of appeal are as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/13
(a)   as regards admissibility: the European Parliament dis-               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      putes, first of all, the Court of First Instance’s characteris-
      ation of the letter of 19 November 1998 of the two
      Italian Vice-presidents of the European Parliament as the            —     annul the Commission’s decision of 31 October 2000
      ‘applicants’ application for membership’. According to                     declaring that the Spanish legislation on the exemption
      the Court of First Instance, that application for member-                  from corporation tax of expenditure and investments
      ship was made on behalf of the applicants. In the                          made abroad constitutes aid which is incompatible with
      opinion of the Parliament, that is an apoditic assertion,                  the common market and prohibited by Article 4(c) of the
      unsupported by reasons and having no basis in relevant                     ECSC Treaty;
      provisions of law, or in practice;
                                                                           —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
(b) again, as regards admissibility: the Parliament also dis-
     putes the Court of First Instance’s characterisation of the
     College of Quaestors’ letter of 4 February 1999 as a
     decision. Rather, it was merely a communication from
     the quaestors of the European Parliament for the purposes             Pleas in law and main arguments
     of providing information and as a courtesy, and, in any
     event, did no more than confirm the existing situation, of
                                                                           —     Infringement of the procedure laid down by law and
     which the Members of Parliament in question were
                                                                                breach of the principles of legal certainty, of the right
     already perfectly well aware. Moreover, the informal and
                                                                                to a fair hearing and of the protection of legitimate
     atypical requests the applicants made of the quaestors
                                                                                expectations: by not adopting the decision within the
     place them outside the scope of every applicable rule and
                                                                                time-limit prescribed by Article 6(5) of Decision
     every procedure (such as that provided for in Article
                                                                                2496/96/ECSC, the Commission failed to observe the
     27(2) of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses
                                                                                procedure laid down by the latter decision, on which the
     and Allowances to Members);
                                                                                contested decision is based. Moreover, the contested
                                                                                decision was adopted contrary to the legitimate expec-
(c)  lastly, as to the substance: the European Parliament                        tations of both the Member State to which it was
     maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law                     addressed and the undertakings affected by it. Following
     when, reversing the burden of proof and thus committing                     the finalisation of the preparatory documents, the Com-
     a breach of procedure, it found that the Parliament had                     mission failed to give its definitive decision within the
     ‘not proved that the Members had acquired precise                           legal time-limit of three months; it allowed several years
     knowledge of the amending decision more than six                            to elapse following the expiry of the deadline for the
     months before they submitted their applications’, and                       adoption of a decision, and may thus reasonably be
     concluded that ‘the applicants submitted their appli-                       considered to have engendered a legitimate expectation
     cations for membership of the provisional pension                           that the measures in issue were not regarded as contrary
     scheme within the time-limit laid down in the amendment                     to the Treaty in the light of the investigation initiated in
     to Annex III’.                                                              1997.
                                                                           —     Infringement of Article 15 ECSC, on account of the
                                                                                absence of a statement of reasons concerning the change
                                                                                of criterion and the effect of the legislation on the
                                                                                competitiveness of the national products exported.
                                                                           —     Misapplication of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty: non-
                                                                                existence of any aid or subsidy within the meaning of
Action brought on 29 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                that provision: automatically to assimilate the concept of
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                aid under that provision to aid under Article 87 EC
                                 ties
                                                                                could give rise to inconsistency, inasmuch as the effects
                                                                                produced by Article 87 EC are absolute and uncon-
                           (Case C-501/00)                                       ditional. The ECSC Treaty automatically prohibits aid by
                                                                                virtue of the very fact of accession to the ECSC; it does
                                                                                not require any assessment of the effects of such aid on
                            (2001/C 79/24)                                       competition, and does not regulate or deal with existing
                                                                                grants of aid, since all aid, past and future, is covered by
                                                                                the same prohibition. For that reason, it may be stated,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        on the basis of the case-law of the Court and of the aids
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     code referred to, that the aid prohibited by Article 4(c) is
Communities on 29 December 2000 by the Kingdom of                                direct aid, whether or not specifically intended for ECSC
Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del                       undertakings. Measures adopted by Member States which
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                          produce indirect effects or repercussions on competition
Luxembourg care of the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard                            are subject to different rules, in particular Article 67 of
Emmanuel Servais.                                                                the ECSC Treaty.


title: Case T-689/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/84

         Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-689/15)
   (2016/C 048/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 899

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2015 in Case R 2491/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 899 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

               —

               order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.