# Official Journal C 6/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.006.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 6 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 557 January 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.006.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 6

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 557 January 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2012/C 006/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 370, 17.12.2011 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2012/C 006/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 370, 17.12.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2012/C 006/02 | Case C-402/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by Jager & Polacek GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 2 |
| 2012/C 006/03 | Case C-478/11 P: Appeal lodged on 21 September 2011 by Laurent Gbagbo against the order delivered on 13 July 2011 by the General Court in Case T-348/11 Gbagbo v Council | 2 |
| 2012/C 006/04 | Case C-479/11 P: Appeal lodged on 21 September 2011 by Katinan Justin Koné against the order delivered on 13 July 2011 by the General Court in Case T-349/11 Koné v Council | 3 |
| 2012/C 006/05 | Case C-480/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Akissi Daniėle Boni-Claverie against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-350/11 Boni-Claverie v Council | 4 |
| 2012/C 006/06 | Case C-481/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Alcide Djédjé against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-351/11 Djédjé v Council | 5 |
| 2012/C 006/07 | Case C-482/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Affi Pascal N'Guessan against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-352/11 N'Guessan v Council | 6 |
| 2012/C 006/08 | Case C-525/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 17 October 2011 — SIA Mednis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 7 |
| 2012/C 006/09 | Case C-527/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 10 October 2011 — SIA Ablessio v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests | 8 |
| | General Court |
| 2012/C 006/10 | Case T-51/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Fardem Packaging v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure) | 9 |
| 2012/C 006/11 | Case T-54/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Kendrion v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Economic entity — Joint and several liability — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Real ability to pay) | 9 |
| 2012/C 006/12 | Joined Cases T-55/06 and T-66/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — RKW and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Implementation — Legality — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Single and continuous infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Exclusively passive role — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Imputability of unlawful conduct) | 9 |
| 2012/C 006/13 | Case T-59/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Attenuating circumstances — Passive role — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction) | 10 |
| 2012/C 006/14 | Case T-68/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Limitation period — Proof of the infringement) | 10 |
| 2012/C 006/15 | Case T-72/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Groupe Gascogne v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Proportionality) | 11 |
| 2012/C 006/16 | Case T-76/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — ASPLA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Exchange of individualised information — Fixing of prices and sales quotas by geographic area — Allocation of customers — Concerted bidding in response to invitations to tender — Single and continuous infringement — Extent of the infringement — Definition of the product market and the geographic market — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Principles of equal treatment and proportionality — Aggravating and attenuating circumstances — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover) | 11 |
| 2012/C 006/17 | Case T-78/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Álvarez v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concept of undertaking — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of innocence) | 11 |
| 2012/C 006/18 | Case T-79/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing — Allocation of sales quotas by geographic area — Allocation of customers — Exchange of individualised information — Proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Proportionality — Attenuating circumstances — Follow-my-leader role) | 12 |
| 2012/C 006/19 | Case T-308/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products — Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)) | 12 |
| 2012/C 006/20 | Case T-484/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Powerball — Earlier unregistered word mark POWERBALL — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 13 |
| 2012/C 006/21 | Joined Cases T-170/10 and T-340/10: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice (Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Provision of support services to IT systems users — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid because it was lodged out of time — Award of contract to another tenderer — Action for annulment — Non-contractual liability) | 13 |
| 2012/C 006/22 | Case T-276/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ — Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 13 |
| 2012/C 006/23 | Case T-323/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou (CHABOU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CHABOU — Earlier national and international word marks Chalou — Refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2012/C 006/24 | Case T-363/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Abbot Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark RESTORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Infringement of the right to be heard — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2012/C 006/25 | Case T-434/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT — Earlier Community figurative mark alpine — Misuse of power — Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) | 14 |
| 2012/C 006/26 | Case T-500/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DORMA — Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) | 15 |
| 2012/C 006/27 | Case T-58/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Nolin v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations — Legal basis — Competence of the author of the act — Principle of non-discrimination) | 15 |
| 2012/C 006/28 | Case T-25/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — BASF Schweiz and BASF Lampertheim v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Withdrawal of the decision — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2012/C 006/29 | Case T-43/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Elementis and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Markets for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Withdrawal of the decision — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2012/C 006/30 | Case T-120/10: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — Refusal to amend the form of order sought — No need to adjudicate) | 16 |
| 2012/C 006/31 | Case T-449/10: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate) | 17 |
| 2012/C 006/32 | Case T-243/11: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE) (Community trade mark — Applicant represented by a lawyer who is a not a third person — Inadmissibility) | 17 |
| 2012/C 006/33 | Case T-544/11: Action brought on 12 October 2011 — Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM — Philips (STEAM GLIDE) | 17 |
| 2012/C 006/34 | Case T-548/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY) | 18 |
| 2012/C 006/35 | Case T-549/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO) | 19 |
| 2012/C 006/36 | Case T-552/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission | 19 |
| 2012/C 006/37 | Case T-553/11: Action brought on 14 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB | 20 |
| 2012/C 006/38 | Case T-555/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — tesa v OHIM — Superquimica (tesa TACK) | 21 |
| 2012/C 006/39 | Case T-556/11: Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM | 21 |
| 2012/C 006/40 | Case T-561/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO) | 22 |
| 2012/C 006/41 | Case T-569/11: Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Gitana v OHIM — Rosenruist (GITANA) | 22 |
| 2012/C 006/42 | Case T-574/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard) | 23 |
| 2012/C 006/43 | Case T-579/11: Action brought on 11 November 2011 — Akhras v Council | 23 |
| 2012/C 006/44 | Case T-287/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Unilever Espãna and Unilever v OHIM — Med Trans G. Poulias-S. Brakatselos (MED FRIGO S.A.) | 24 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2012/C 006/45 | Case F-101/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament | 25 |
| 2012/C 006/46 | Case F-103/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB | 25 |
| 2012/C 006/47 | Case F-105/11: Action brought on 17 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 26 |
| 2012/C 006/48 | Case F-109/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 26 |
| 2012/C 006/49 | Case F-110/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission | 26 |
| 2012/C 006/50 | Case F-111/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission | 27 |
| 2012/C 006/51 | Case F-112/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission | 27 |
| 2012/C 006/52 | Case F-114/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament | 27 |
| 2012/C 006/53 | Case F-115/11: Action brought on 27 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB | 28 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2012/C 006/02

Case C-402/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by Jager & Polacek GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

2

2012/C 006/03

Case C-478/11 P: Appeal lodged on 21 September 2011 by Laurent Gbagbo against the order delivered on 13 July 2011 by the General Court in Case T-348/11 Gbagbo v Council

Gbagbo v Council

2

2012/C 006/04

Case C-479/11 P: Appeal lodged on 21 September 2011 by Katinan Justin Koné against the order delivered on 13 July 2011 by the General Court in Case T-349/11 Koné v Council

3

2012/C 006/05

Case C-480/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Akissi Daniėle Boni-Claverie against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-350/11 Boni-Claverie v Council

Boni-Claverie v Council

4

2012/C 006/06

Case C-481/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Alcide Djédjé against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-351/11 Djédjé v Council

Djédjé v Council

5

2012/C 006/07

Case C-482/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Affi Pascal N'Guessan against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-352/11 N'Guessan v Council

N'Guessan v Council

6

2012/C 006/08

Case C-525/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 17 October 2011 — SIA Mednis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

7

2012/C 006/09

Case C-527/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 10 October 2011 — SIA Ablessio v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

8

General Court

2012/C 006/10

Case T-51/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Fardem Packaging v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

9

2012/C 006/11

Case T-54/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Kendrion v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Economic entity — Joint and several liability — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Real ability to pay)

9

2012/C 006/12

Joined Cases T-55/06 and T-66/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — RKW and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Implementation — Legality — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Single and continuous infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Exclusively passive role — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Imputability of unlawful conduct)

9

2012/C 006/13

Case T-59/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Attenuating circumstances — Passive role — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

10

2012/C 006/14

Case T-68/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Limitation period — Proof of the infringement)

10

2012/C 006/15

Case T-72/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Groupe Gascogne v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Proportionality)

11

2012/C 006/16

Case T-76/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — ASPLA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Exchange of individualised information — Fixing of prices and sales quotas by geographic area — Allocation of customers — Concerted bidding in response to invitations to tender — Single and continuous infringement — Extent of the infringement — Definition of the product market and the geographic market — Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Principles of equal treatment and proportionality — Aggravating and attenuating circumstances — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover)

11

2012/C 006/17

Case T-78/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Álvarez v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concept of undertaking — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Presumption of innocence)

11

2012/C 006/18

Case T-79/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing — Allocation of sales quotas by geographic area — Allocation of customers — Exchange of individualised information — Proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Proportionality — Attenuating circumstances — Follow-my-leader role)

12

2012/C 006/19

Case T-308/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products — Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

12

2012/C 006/20

Case T-484/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Powerball — Earlier unregistered word mark POWERBALL — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

13

2012/C 006/21

Joined Cases T-170/10 and T-340/10: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice (Public service contracts — Procurement procedure — Provision of support services to IT systems users — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid because it was lodged out of time — Award of contract to another tenderer — Action for annulment — Non-contractual liability)

13

2012/C 006/22

Case T-276/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ — Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

13

2012/C 006/23

Case T-323/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou (CHABOU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CHABOU — Earlier national and international word marks Chalou — Refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2012/C 006/24

Case T-363/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Abbot Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark RESTORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Infringement of the right to be heard — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

14

2012/C 006/25

Case T-434/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT — Earlier Community figurative mark alpine — Misuse of power — Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

14

2012/C 006/26

Case T-500/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DORMA — Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

15

2012/C 006/27

Case T-58/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Nolin v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations — Legal basis — Competence of the author of the act — Principle of non-discrimination)

15

2012/C 006/28

Case T-25/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — BASF Schweiz and BASF Lampertheim v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Withdrawal of the decision — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

16

2012/C 006/29

Case T-43/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Elementis and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Markets for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Withdrawal of the decision — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

16

2012/C 006/30

Case T-120/10: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — Refusal to amend the form of order sought — No need to adjudicate)

16

2012/C 006/31

Case T-449/10: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission (Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

17

2012/C 006/32

Case T-243/11: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE) (Community trade mark — Applicant represented by a lawyer who is a not a third person — Inadmissibility)

17

2012/C 006/33

Case T-544/11: Action brought on 12 October 2011 — Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM — Philips (STEAM GLIDE)

17

2012/C 006/34

Case T-548/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY)

18

2012/C 006/35

Case T-549/11: Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO)

19

2012/C 006/36

Case T-552/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

19

2012/C 006/37

Case T-553/11: Action brought on 14 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

20

2012/C 006/38

Case T-555/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — tesa v OHIM — Superquimica (tesa TACK)

21

2012/C 006/39

Case T-556/11: Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM

21

2012/C 006/40

Case T-561/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)

22

2012/C 006/41

Case T-569/11: Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Gitana v OHIM — Rosenruist (GITANA)

22

2012/C 006/42

Case T-574/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)

23

2012/C 006/43

Case T-579/11: Action brought on 11 November 2011 — Akhras v Council

23

2012/C 006/44

Case T-287/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Unilever Espãna and Unilever v OHIM — Med Trans G. Poulias-S. Brakatselos (MED FRIGO S.A.)

24

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2012/C 006/45

Case F-101/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

25

2012/C 006/46

Case F-103/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB

25

2012/C 006/47

Case F-105/11: Action brought on 17 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

26

2012/C 006/48

Case F-109/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

26

2012/C 006/49

Case F-110/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

26

2012/C 006/50

Case F-111/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

27

2012/C 006/51

Case F-112/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

27

2012/C 006/52

Case F-114/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

27

2012/C 006/53

Case F-115/11: Action brought on 27 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB

28

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/1

---

2012/C 6/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 370, 17.12.2011

Past publications

OJ C 362, 10.12.2011

OJ C 355, 3.12.2011

OJ C 347, 26.11.2011

OJ C 340, 19.11.2011

OJ C 331, 12.11.2011

OJ C 319, 29.10.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/2

---

Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by Jager & Polacek GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-402/11 P)

2012/C 6/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09;

| — | Order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The requirement for effective legal protection demands that the disputed communication of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, by which the appellant’s opposition was declared admissible, be regarded as a decision and that the opposition proceedings be continued. The contrary view of the General Court is legally incorrect and based on judgments of the Court of Justice which do not apply to the present case.

Furthermore, the General Court erred in stating that a communication cannot be a decision. What is correct is, rather, that a decision may also be contained in a communication.

Lastly, the General Court provided insufficient grounds as to why the international registration of the disputed mark is irrelevant as regards the present case.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/2

---

Appeal lodged on 21 September 2011 by Laurent Gbagbo against the order delivered on 13 July 2011 by the General Court in Case T-348/11 Gbagbo v Council

(Case C-478/11 P)

2012/C 6/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Laurent Gbagbo (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, J. Vergès, R. Dumas and M. Ceccaldi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action brought by Mr Laurent Gbagbo admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action brought by Mr Laurent Gbagbo admissible;

| — | Annul the order in Case T-348/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order in Case T-348/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred;

| — | Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Pleas and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

| — | Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council.

| — | The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights.

| — | The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction.

| — | The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| — | The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him. |
| --- | --- |

—

The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him.

| — | A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction. |
| --- | --- |

—

A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction.

| — | In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/3

---

Appeal lodged on 21 September 2011 by Katinan Justin Koné against the order delivered on 13 July 2011 by the General Court in Case T-349/11 Koné v Council

(Case C-479/11 P)

2012/C 6/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Katinan Justin Koné (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, J. Vergès, R. Dumas and M. Ceccaldi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action brought by Mr Katinan Justin Koné admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action brought by Mr Katinan Justin Koné admissible;

| — | Annul the order in Case T-349/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order in Case T-349/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred;

| — | Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Pleas and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

| — | Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council.

| — | The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights.

| — | The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction.

| — | The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| — | The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him. |
| --- | --- |

—

The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him.

| — | A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction. |
| --- | --- |

—

A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction.

| — | In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/4

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Akissi Daniėle Boni-Claverie against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-350/11 Boni-Claverie v Council

(Case C-480/11 P)

2012/C 6/05

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Akissi Daniėle Boni-Claverie (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, J. Vergès, R. Dumas and M. Ceccaldi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action brought by Mr Daniėle Boni-Claverie admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action brought by Mr Daniėle Boni-Claverie admissible;

| — | Annul the order in Case T-350/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order in Case T-350/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred;

| — | Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

| — | Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council.

| — | The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights.

| — | The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction.

| — | The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| — | The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him. |
| --- | --- |

—

The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him.

| — | A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction. |
| --- | --- |

—

A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction.

| — | In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/5

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Alcide Djédjé against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-351/11 Djédjé v Council

(Case C-481/11 P)

2012/C 6/06

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Alcide Djédjé (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, J. Vergès, R. Dumas and M. Ceccaldi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action brought by Mr Alcide Djédjé admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action brought by Mr Alcide Djédjé admissible;

| — | Annul the order in Case T-351/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order in Case T-351/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred;

| — | Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

| — | Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council.

| — | The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights.

| — | The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction.

| — | The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| — | The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him. |
| --- | --- |

—

The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him.

| — | A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction. |
| --- | --- |

—

A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction.

| — | In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/6

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Affi Pascal N'Guessan against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-352/11 N'Guessan v Council

(Case C-482/11 P)

2012/C 6/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Affi Pascal N'Guessan (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, J. Vergès, R. Dumas and M. Ceccaldi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the action brought by Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action brought by Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan admissible;

| — | Annul the order in Case T-352/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order in Case T-352/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred;

| — | Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

| — | Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council.

| — | The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights.

| — | The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction.

| — | The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| — | The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him. |
| --- | --- |

—

The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him.

| — | A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction. |
| --- | --- |

—

A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction.

| — | In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 17 October 2011 — SIA Mednis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-525/11)

2012/C 6/08

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA Mednis

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Question referred

Does Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax give a Member State the right, without carrying out any specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation, not to refund that part of the excess tax that is over 18 % (the standard rate of VAT) of the total value of the taxable transactions carried out in the corresponding monthly tax periods until the State tax authority has received the annual return of the person subject to value added tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p 1.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 10 October 2011 — SIA Ablessio v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-527/11)

2012/C 6/09

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA Ablessio

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as prohibiting refusal of the individual registration number that identifies a taxable person, on the basis that the holder of the taxable person’s shares previously obtained on various occasions the individual number for other undertakings, which did not carry out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred by the holder to other persons immediately after obtaining the individual number? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as prohibiting refusal of the individual registration number that identifies a taxable person, on the basis that the holder of the taxable person’s shares previously obtained on various occasions the individual number for other undertakings, which did not carry out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred by the holder to other persons immediately after obtaining the individual number?

| 2. | Is Article 214 of that Directive to be interpreted, in relation to Article 273 thereof, as permitting the tax authority, before assigning the individual number, to verify the capacity of the taxable person to carry out the activity that is subject to tax, where this verification is intended to ensure correct collection of the tax and prevent tax evasion? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 214 of that Directive to be interpreted, in relation to Article 273 thereof, as permitting the tax authority, before assigning the individual number, to verify the capacity of the taxable person to carry out the activity that is subject to tax, where this verification is intended to ensure correct collection of the tax and prevent tax evasion?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---

General Court

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Fardem Packaging v Commission

(Case T-51/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2012/C 6/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Fardem Packaging BV (Edam, Netherlands) (represented initially by: F.J. Leeflang and W. Geelhoed, then by F. Leeflang and S. de Boer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fardem Packaging BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fardem Packaging BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Kendrion v Commission

(Case T-54/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Economic entity - Joint and several liability - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Real ability to pay)

2012/C 6/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kendrion NV (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented initially by: P. Glazener and C. Meijer, then by P. Glazener and L. Haasbeek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in so far as it is addressed to the applicant, concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for annulment or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kendrion NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kendrion NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — RKW and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission

(Joined Cases T-55/06 and T-66/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Implementation - Legality - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Single and continuous infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Exclusively passive role - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Imputability of unlawful conduct)

2012/C 6/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: RKW SE, formerly RKW AG Rheinische Kunststoffwerke (Worms, Germany), and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA (Worms) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Núñez-Müller, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders RKW SE and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RKW SE and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission

(Case T-59/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Attenuating circumstances - Passive role - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2012/C 6/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Low & Bonar plc (Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom) and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV (Zele, Belgium) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, lawyer, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Gray, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(l) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) at EUR 9.18 million; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(l) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) at EUR 9.18 million;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | The European Commission, Low & Bonar plc and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission, Low & Bonar plc and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission

(Case T-68/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Limitation period - Proof of the infringement)

2012/C 6/14

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Stempher BV (Rijssen, Netherlands) and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV (Rijssen) (represented by: J. de Pree and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part and for amendment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it concerns Stempher BV and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it concerns Stempher BV and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Groupe Gascogne v Commission

(Case T-72/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Proportionality)

2012/C 6/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Gascogne SA (St Paul-lès-Dax, France) (represented initially by: C. Lazarus, then by P. Hubert and E. Durand, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, then by F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for amendment of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — ASPLA v Commission

(Case T-76/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Exchange of individualised information - Fixing of prices and sales quotas by geographic area - Allocation of customers - Concerted bidding in response to invitations to tender - Single and continuous infringement - Extent of the infringement - Definition of the product market and the geographic market - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - Principles of equal treatment and proportionality - Aggravating and attenuating circumstances - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover)

2012/C 6/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Plasticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) (Torrelavega, Spain) (represented initially by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez and A. García Castillo, then by E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. Ruixó Claramunt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Plasticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Plasticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Álvarez v Commission

(Case T-78/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concept of undertaking - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Presumption of innocence)

2012/C 6/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Armando Álvarez, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez and A. García Castillo, then by E. Garayar Gutiérrez, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. Ruixó Claramunt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Armando Álvarez, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Armando Álvarez, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Sachsa Verpackung v Commission

(Case T-79/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing - Allocation of sales quotas by geographic area - Allocation of customers - Exchange of individualised information - Proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Proportionality - Attenuating circumstances - Follow-my-leader role)

2012/C 6/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (Wieda, Germany) (represented by: F. Puel and L. François-Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, then by F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for amendment of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products)

(Case T-308/06) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products - Earlier national figurative mark BÚFALO - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2012/C 6/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, California, United States) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented initially by M. Thewes and V. Wiot, and subsequently by M. Thewes and P. Reuter, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 1094/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Werner & Mertz GmbH and Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — McLoughney v OHIM — Kern (Powerball)

(Case T-484/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Powerball - Earlier unregistered word mark POWERBALL - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rory McLoughney (Thurles, Ireland) (represented by: J. Stratford Lysandrides, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ernst Kern (Zahling, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1547/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Rory McLoughney and Mr Ernst Kern

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Mr Rory McLoughney to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Rory McLoughney to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/13

---

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice

(Joined Cases T-170/10 and T-340/10) (1)

(Public service contracts - Procurement procedure - Provision of support services to IT systems users - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid because it was lodged out of time - Award of contract to another tenderer - Action for annulment - Non-contractual liability)

2012/C 6/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (CTG Luxembourg PSF) (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes and B. Marthoz, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. Placco, Agent)

Re:

Applications (i) for annulment, first, of decision of the Court of Justice of 9 February 2010 to reject the tender submitted by the consortium of which the applicant is a member in the context of procurement procedure reference AO 008/2009 entitled ‘1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’ and, secondly, of the decision of 5 March 2010 confirming the rejection and, thirdly, the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for compensation for the loss allegedly incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the applications; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applications;

| 2. | Orders Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (CTG Luxembourg PSF) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (CTG Luxembourg PSF) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)

(Case T-276/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ - Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/22

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Coto de Rioja, SA (Oyón, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: María Álvarez Serrano (Gomariz Leiro, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between El Coto de Rioja, SA and Ms María Álvarez Serrano.

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) of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008-4) in so far as the assessment of the Board of Appeal as to the similarity of the signs in question is incorrect; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008-4) in so far as the assessment of the Board of Appeal as to the similarity of the signs in question is incorrect;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou (CHABOU)

(Case T-323/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CHABOU - Earlier national and international word marks Chalou - Refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 12(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Chickmouza Chabou (Rheine, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Triebold, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Chalou GmbH (Herschweiler-Pettersheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Träger, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1165/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Chalou GmbH and Chickmouza Chabou

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Mr Chickmouza Chabou to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Chickmouza Chabou to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Abbot Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)

(Case T-363/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark RESTORE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbot Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and J. Springer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1560/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark RESTORE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Abbott Laboratories to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Abbott Laboratories to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-434/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘alpine’ - Misuse of power - Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Václav Hrbek (Augustinova, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Outdoor Group Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1441/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Outdoor Group Ltd and Mr Václav Hrbek.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Václav Hrbek to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Václav Hrbek to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS)

(Case T-500/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS’ - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks ‘DORMA’ - Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dorma GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Doorsa, SL (Petrel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2010 (Case R 542/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Dorma GmbH & Co. KG and Puertas Doorsa, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dorma GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dorma GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Nolin v Commission

(Case T-58/11) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations - Legal basis - Competence of the author of the act - Principle of non-discrimination)

2012/C 6/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2010, delivered in Case F-82/09 Nolin v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michel Nolin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michel Nolin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/16

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — BASF Schweiz and BASF Lampertheim v Commission

(Case T-25/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Withdrawal of the decision - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 6/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: BASF Schweiz AG, formerly BASF Speciality Chemicals Holding GmbH (Basel, Switzerland), and BASF Lampertheim GmbH (Lampertheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Montag and T. Wilson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in so far as those provisions concern the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/16

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Elementis and Others v Commission

(Case T-43/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Withdrawal of the decision - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 6/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Elementis plc (London, United Kingdom); Elementis Holdings Ltd (London); Elementis UK Ltd (London); and Elementis Services Ltd (London) (represented by: T. Wessely, A. de Brousse, lawyers, A. Woods, Solicitor, and E. Spinelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers), in so far as it concerns the applicants, as well as, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the fines imposed on the applicants under that decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/16

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-120/10) (1)

(Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - Refusal to amend the form of order sought - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 6/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) (Brussels, Belgium); European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels); BirdLife International (Brussels) (represented by: S. Hockman QC, and by P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 9 February 2010 refusing access to certain documents relating to biofuels modelling

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by ClientEarth, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and BirdLife International. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by ClientEarth, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and BirdLife International.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/17

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — ClientEarth and Others v Commission

(Case T-449/10) (1)

(Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 6/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) (Brussels, Belgium); European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels); and BirdLife International (Brussels) (represented by: S. Hockman QC, and by P. Kirch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission of 20 July 2010 refusing access to certain documents relating to drafts of a report on the Global Trade and Environmental Impact Study of the Biofuels Mandate of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by ClientEarth, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and BirdLife International. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by ClientEarth, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and BirdLife International.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/17

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE)

(Case T-243/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Applicant represented by a lawyer who is a not a third person - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 6/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Benito and C. Mansell, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Farmodiética — Cosmética, Dietética e Produtos Farmacêuticos, Lda (Estarda de S. Marcos, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2011 (Case R 665/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Farmodiética — Cosmética, Dietética e Produtos Farmacêuticos, Lda and Glaxo Group Ltd.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Glaxo Group Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Glaxo Group Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/17

---

Action brought on 12 October 2011 — Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM — Philips (STEAM GLIDE)

(Case T-544/11)

2012/C 6/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2011 in case R 1289/2010-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2011 in case R 1289/2010-1; and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘STEAM GLIDE’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark registration No 5167382

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal filed a request for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with the absolute grounds of refusal of Article 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark registration invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the mark and its component parts, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods in question. Further the Board of Appeal failed to consider the general interest that underlies Article 7(1)(c) CTMR. Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the essential function of the mark, failed to consider the perspective of the average consumer, failed to consider Article 7(1)(b) separately from Article 7(1)(c), failed to consider the general interest that underlies Article 7(1)(b) CTMR and failed to analyse the mark as a whole.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/18

---

Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- QUALITY)

(Case T-548/11)

2012/C 6/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

Form of order sought

| — | Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to; |
| --- | --- |

—

Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 114/2011-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 114/2011-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international trade mark registration No W 983683 of the figurative mark ‘real,- QUALITY’, in red, blue and beige, for services in class 36

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 249791 of the word mark ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; Portuguese trade mark registration No 249793 of the word mark ‘REAL SEGUROS’, for services in class 36; Portuguese figurative mark registration No 254390 comprising the word element ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; various unregistered rights claimed to be protected in all Member States or in Portugal

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed marks.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/19

---

Action brought on 19 October 2011 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Real Seguros (real,- BIO)

(Case T-549/11)

2012/C 6/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Real Seguros, SA (Porto, Portugal)

Form of order sought

| — | Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to; |
| --- | --- |

—

Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the Portuguese Trademark Office on the request of revocation which has been filed by the applicant against the earlier Portuguese trademark registrations No 249791, No 249793 and No 254390; In case that the request for the stay of proceedings is not granted, to continue the proceeding and to;

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 115/2011-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2011 in case R 115/2011-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international trade mark registration No W 983684 of the figurative mark ‘real,- BIO’, in green, white and brown, for services in class 36

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 249791 of the word mark ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; Portuguese trade mark registration No 249793 of the word mark ‘REAL SEGUROS’, for services in class 36; Portuguese figurative mark registration No 254390 comprising the word element ‘REAL’, for services in class 36; various unregistered rights claimed to be protected in all Member States or in Portugal

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed marks.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/19

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-552/11)

2012/C 6/36

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action;

| — | annul the contested debit note; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested debit note;

| — | take account of the applicant’s submissions if it holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 17 June 2011 are to be refunded; |
| --- | --- |

—

take account of the applicant’s submissions if it holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 17 June 2011 are to be refunded;

| — | annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;

| — | set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for five years; |
| --- | --- |

—

set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for five years;

| — | hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision which is contained in debit note No 3241109207 of 9 September 2011 and relates to the applicant’s participation in the ‘WARD IN HAND’ research project No 510743.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| — | misuse of power by the European Commission, in so far as it proceeded to a legally fictional equation of the non-delivery of time sheets with the non-delivery of items to be delivered, as conduct in breach of contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

misuse of power by the European Commission, in so far as it proceeded to a legally fictional equation of the non-delivery of time sheets with the non-delivery of items to be delivered, as conduct in breach of contract;

| — | absence of a statement of reasons in the contested debit note and infringement of the general principle of law that an unfavourable measure must incorporate a statement of reasons in order for the legality of the reasoning to be reviewed, since the contested debit note does not state any reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

absence of a statement of reasons in the contested debit note and infringement of the general principle of law that an unfavourable measure must incorporate a statement of reasons in order for the legality of the reasoning to be reviewed, since the contested debit note does not state any reasons;

| — | failure to take account of the evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to take account of the evidence;

| — | error of law and failure to state reasons, because the defendant took no account of the applicant’s actual submissions and rejected them in a wrongful manner and without stating reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

error of law and failure to state reasons, because the defendant took no account of the applicant’s actual submissions and rejected them in a wrongful manner and without stating reasons;

| — | infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, because the defendant wrongfully failed to pay the applicant the final instalment of the programme and nullified all its research work, five years after the programme’s closure. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, because the defendant wrongfully failed to pay the applicant the final instalment of the programme and nullified all its research work, five years after the programme’s closure.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/20

---

Action brought on 14 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

(Case T-553/11)

2012/C 6/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the joint application of the temporary grouping, led and represented by the applicant, filed in response to the call for applications to participate in the call for tender with reference number 14159/IS/2010 (OJ 2011/S 75-121894), in particular for the services covered by lot 1 of the said tender; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the joint application of the temporary grouping, led and represented by the applicant, filed in response to the call for applications to participate in the call for tender with reference number 14159/IS/2010 (OJ 2011/S 75-121894), in particular for the services covered by lot 1 of the said tender;

| — | Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the applicant’s appeal submitted in accordance with the appeal procedure as defined in section IV.2.1 of the abovementioned call for applications and under the conditions set out in Article 33 of Decision ECB/2007/5 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the applicant’s appeal submitted in accordance with the appeal procedure as defined in section IV.2.1 of the abovementioned call for applications and under the conditions set out in Article 33 of Decision ECB/2007/5 (1);

| — | Annul all related decisions of the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul all related decisions of the defendant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant, pursuant to Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU, for loss of opportunity and damages to its reputation and credibility on account of the tender procedure in question for an amount of EUR 2 000 000,00; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant, pursuant to Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU, for loss of opportunity and damages to its reputation and credibility on account of the tender procedure in question for an amount of EUR 2 000 000,00;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons and failed to disclose the relative merits of the successful candidates. In addition, the applicant alleged that the defendant used vague selection criteria, introduced new criteria during the evaluation and failed to comply with the provisions of Article 28(3) of the Decision ECB/2007/5. Finally, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the rights of defence and the principle of transparency and good administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons and failed to disclose the relative merits of the successful candidates. In addition, the applicant alleged that the defendant used vague selection criteria, introduced new criteria during the evaluation and failed to comply with the provisions of Article 28(3) of the Decision ECB/2007/5. Finally, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the rights of defence and the principle of transparency and good administration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment as it failed to comply with Article 25 of Decision ECB/2007/5 and with the tender specifications. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment as it failed to comply with Article 25 of Decision ECB/2007/5 and with the tender specifications.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 20 of Decision ECB/2007/5 and the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 20 of Decision ECB/2007/5 and the principle of sound administration.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that by dismissing its appeal as inadmissible, the defendant infringed Article 28(3) of the Decision ECB/2007/5. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that by dismissing its appeal as inadmissible, the defendant infringed Article 28(3) of the Decision ECB/2007/5.

---

(1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 3 July 2007 laying down the Rules on Procurement (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 34)

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/21

---

Action brought on 26 October 2011 — tesa v OHIM — Superquimica (tesa TACK)

(Case T-555/11)

2012/C 6/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: tesa SE (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Schwab, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Superquimica, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in case R 866/2010-1, and annul the decision of the Opposition Division in case No B 1301987; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in case R 866/2010-1, and annul the decision of the Opposition Division in case No B 1301987; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘tesa TACK’, for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 6233506

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 585323 of the word mark ‘TACK’, for goods in class 16; Spanish trade mark registration No 2515958 of the figurative mark ‘TACK Ceys’, for goods in class 16

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/21

---

Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM

(Case T-556/11)

2012/C 6/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to reject the bid of the applicants filed in response to the open call for tender AO/029/10 (E-Alicante: software development and maintenance services) (1), communicated by letter dated 11.08.2011, and all the related decisions of the OHIM including those to award the respective contract to the first, second and third cascade contractor; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to reject the bid of the applicants filed in response to the open call for tender AO/029/10 (E-Alicante: software development and maintenance services) (1), communicated by letter dated 11.08.2011, and all the related decisions of the OHIM including those to award the respective contract to the first, second and third cascade contractor; and

| — | Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question in the amount of 67 500 000 euros (EUR); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question in the amount of 67 500 000 euros (EUR); and

| — | Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of loss of opportunity and damage in its reputation and credibility in the amount of 6 750 000 euros (EUR); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of loss of opportunity and damage in its reputation and credibility in the amount of 6 750 000 euros (EUR); and

| — | Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application, even if the present application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application, even if the present application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging






  — | Non-compliance of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation; in that:






  (a) | it failed to state reasons; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

Non-compliance of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation; in that:

(a)

it failed to state reasons;

| (b) | it failed to disclose the relative merits of successful tenderers. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

it failed to disclose the relative merits of successful tenderers.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging






  — | Manifest errors of assessment; use of new award criteria, contrary to the tender specification; use of criteria which were not clarified in the Q&A session; deficient motivation; vague and unsubstantiated comments given by the OHIM; use of erroneous financial formula, which allowed for distortions; and modification of the scope and object of the contract. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

Manifest errors of assessment; use of new award criteria, contrary to the tender specification; use of criteria which were not clarified in the Q&A session; deficient motivation; vague and unsubstantiated comments given by the OHIM; use of erroneous financial formula, which allowed for distortions; and modification of the scope and object of the contract.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging






  — | Discriminatory treatment of tenderers and non-compliance with exclusion criteria of the wining tenderers; infringement of Articles 93(1)(f), 94 and 96 of the Financial Regulation; of Articles 133a and 134b of the Implementing Rules and the principle of good administration, in that:






  (a) | members of the winning consortium are subject to a conflict of interest; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

Discriminatory treatment of tenderers and non-compliance with exclusion criteria of the wining tenderers; infringement of Articles 93(1)(f), 94 and 96 of the Financial Regulation; of Articles 133a and 134b of the Implementing Rules and the principle of good administration, in that:

(a)

members of the winning consortium are subject to a conflict of interest;

| (b) | one member of the winning consortium is involved in fraud, corruption and briberies. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

one member of the winning consortium is involved in fraud, corruption and briberies.

---

(1)  OJ 2011/S 10-013995

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/22

---

Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)

(Case T-561/11)

2012/C 6/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: A. Ferchland, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer Consumer Care AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 July 2011 in case R 1953/2010-1, and dismiss the opposition; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 July 2011 in case R 1953/2010-1, and dismiss the opposition; and

| — | Order the opponent to bear the costs and fees of both the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the opponent to bear the costs and fees of both the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALEVIAN DUO’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6303201

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 786863 of the word mark ‘ALEVE’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/22

---

Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Gitana v OHIM — Rosenruist (GITANA)

(Case T-569/11)

2012/C 6/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gitana SA (Pregny-Chambésy, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Benech, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda (Funchal, Madeira)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 August 2011 in case R 1825/2007-1, and authorise the registration of the Community trade mark application ‘GITANA’ No 3063344 for all the goods in classes 18 and 25; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 August 2011 in case R 1825/2007-1, and authorise the registration of the Community trade mark application ‘GITANA’ No 3063344 for all the goods in classes 18 and 25; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GITANA’, for goods and services in classes 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 34 to 36 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 3063344

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1609312 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No W00555706 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in classes 18 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 531768 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and dismissed the appeal for the remaining

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/23

---

Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)

(Case T-574/11)

2012/C 6/42

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Unipol Banca SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: P. Costa and P. Creta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfut am Main, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 13 July 2011 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 0597/2010-2 brought on 14 April 2010 by Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and, accordingly |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 13 July 2011 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 0597/2010-2 brought on 14 April 2010 by Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and, accordingly

| — | Grant Community trade mark application No 005240080 filed on 18 July 2006 concerning the sign unicard also in respect of the services referred to in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant Community trade mark application No 005240080 filed on 18 July 2006 concerning the sign unicard also in respect of the services referred to in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement.

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Unipol Banca SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘unicard’ (application for registration No 5.240.080) for services in Class 36

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’ (No 991.995), ‘UNIGLOBAL’ (No 991.996) and ‘UniGarant’ (No 30 138 306,5) for services in Class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the application for registration of the mark in question

Pleas in law: Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/23

---

Action brought on 11 November 2011 — Akhras v Council

(Case T-579/11)

2012/C 6/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tarif Akhras (Homs, Syria) (represented by: S. Ashley and S. Millar, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul paragraph 3 of table A of the Annex to Council decision 2011/522/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 3 of table A of the Annex to Council decision 2011/522/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Annul paragraph 3 of table A of Annex I to Council regulation (EU) no 878/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 3 of table A of Annex I to Council regulation (EU) no 878/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council decision 2011/628/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council decision 2011/628/CFSP insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul paragraph 2 of the table in Annex II to Council regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | Declare Article 4(1) of Council decision 2011/273/CFSP (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 4(1) of Council decision 2011/273/CFSP (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant;

| — | Declare Article 5(1) of Council regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 5(1) of Council regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that






  — | The substantive criteria for the designation of the applicant are not met and/or the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria were met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met. In particular, the applicant is not responsible for violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, and he has not supported or benefited from the Syrian regime and he is not associated with anyone that is responsible for the violent repression or who has supported or benefited from the Syrian regime. The only allegation made against the applicant is that he has provided economic support for the Syrian regime. This is false. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that

—

The substantive criteria for the designation of the applicant are not met and/or the Council designated the applicant on the basis of insufficient evidence to establish that the criteria were met and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria were met. In particular, the applicant is not responsible for violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, and he has not supported or benefited from the Syrian regime and he is not associated with anyone that is responsible for the violent repression or who has supported or benefited from the Syrian regime. The only allegation made against the applicant is that he has provided economic support for the Syrian regime. This is false.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that






  — | The designation of the applicant is in manifest violation of his human rights and fundamental freedoms, including his right to respect for his private and family life, to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and ultimately his right to life and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that

—

The designation of the applicant is in manifest violation of his human rights and fundamental freedoms, including his right to respect for his private and family life, to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and ultimately his right to life and/or is in violation of the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that






  — | The Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to give the applicant individual notification of his designation, (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons and (c) to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that

—

The Council has in any event breached the procedural requirements: (a) to give the applicant individual notification of his designation, (b) to give adequate and sufficient reasons and (c) to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/24

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Unilever Espãna and Unilever v OHIM — Med Trans G. Poulias-S. Brakatselos (MED FRIGO S.A.)

(Case T-287/10) (1)

2012/C 6/44

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/25

---

Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-101/11)

2012/C 6/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETERS for BULGARIAN (BG) of 30 June 2011 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition and an application for damages for material and non-material damage.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETERS for BULGARIAN (BG) of 30 June 2011 taken after re-examination of the applicant’s tests, confirming her results in them and, consequently, the decision not to include her on the reserve list; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETERS for BULGARIAN (BG) of 30 June 2011 taken after re-examination of the applicant’s tests, confirming her results in them and, consequently, the decision not to include her on the reserve list;

| — | annul the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETES for BULGARIAN (BG) of 31 May 2011 to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board in the open competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETES for BULGARIAN (BG) of 31 May 2011 to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition;

| — | annul all actions of the selection board subsequent to the stage when the contested irregularities occurred; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all actions of the selection board subsequent to the stage when the contested irregularities occurred;

| — | order the defendant to pay, as damages for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant’s career, a sum of EUR 15 000, subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings, together with interest at the annual rate of 7 % from the date of this action; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay, as damages for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant’s career, a sum of EUR 15 000, subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings, together with interest at the annual rate of 7 % from the date of this action;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/25

---

Action brought on 11 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-103/11)

2012/C 6/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB not to take any action following the inquiry concerning alleged psychological harassment and to annul the final conclusion of the committee of inquiry and the claim for damages.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the final conclusion of the committee of inquiry in its Opinion of 11 July 2011 in so far as it states that there are no facts that can be classified as harassment in respect of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the final conclusion of the committee of inquiry in its Opinion of 11 July 2011 in so far as it states that there are no facts that can be classified as harassment in respect of the applicant;

| — | annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011;

| — | find that she was and is the victim of harassment; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that she was and is the victim of harassment;

| — | direct the EIB to put an end to that harassment; |
| --- | --- |

—

direct the EIB to put an end to that harassment;

| — | annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 1 September 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the EIB of 1 September 2011;

| — | find that there has been maladministration on the part of the EIB; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that there has been maladministration on the part of the EIB;

| — | find that the EIB is liable vis-à-vis the applicant as regards the illegality of the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011, the harassment which she suffered and maladministration on the part of the EIB; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the EIB is liable vis-à-vis the applicant as regards the illegality of the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011, the harassment which she suffered and maladministration on the part of the EIB;

| — | order the EIB to pay compensation for past and future physical, material and non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of the illegality of the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011, the psychological harassment she suffered and maladministration on the part of the EIB, together with default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay compensation for past and future physical, material and non-material damage caused to the applicant as a result of the illegality of the decision of the President of the EIB of 27 July 2011, the psychological harassment she suffered and maladministration on the part of the EIB, together with default interest;

| — | with regard to the unlawfulness of the President’s letter of 27 July 2011:






  — | material damage due to loss of earnings: EUR 113 100; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

with regard to the unlawfulness of the President’s letter of 27 July 2011:

—

material damage due to loss of earnings: EUR 113 100;

| — | non-material damage: EUR 50 000 |
| --- | --- |

—

non-material damage: EUR 50 000

| — | with regard to the psychological harassment she suffered:






  — | material damage in respect of earnings and loss of career: EUR 132 100; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

with regard to the psychological harassment she suffered:

—

material damage in respect of earnings and loss of career: EUR 132 100;

| — | non-material damage: EUR 50 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

non-material damage: EUR 50 000;

| — | associated costs: EUR 13 361,93; |
| --- | --- |

—

associated costs: EUR 13 361,93;

| — | with regard to maladministration on the part of the EIB:






  — | breach by the EIB of its obligation of confidentiality and data protection: EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

with regard to maladministration on the part of the EIB:

—

breach by the EIB of its obligation of confidentiality and data protection: EUR 10 000;

| — | incident regarding the examination of witnesses: EUR 40 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

incident regarding the examination of witnesses: EUR 40 000;

| — | order the EIB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/26

---

Action brought on 17 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-105/11)

2012/C 6/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 29 June 2011 to reject the applicant’s complaint against rejection of the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 29 June 2011 to reject the applicant’s complaint against rejection of the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 25 March 2011 to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 25 March 2011 to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/26

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-109/11)

2012/C 6/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009; more specifically, the part of the report issued by EUROSTAT for that period; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul part of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009; more specifically, the part of the report issued by EUROSTAT for that period;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/26

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-110/11)

2012/C 6/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months to the extent that they contain no correction of the adjustment of remunerations taking account of the correction coefficient for their place of employment.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months: |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months:

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/27

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-111/11)

2012/C 6/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months applying the new correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions establishing the applicants’ salary statements on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions establishing the applicants’ salary statements on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010;

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaints concerning the correction coefficient applied to Varese; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaints concerning the correction coefficient applied to Varese;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/27

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-112/11)

2012/C 6/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the applicant’s salary statement for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months applying the new correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the salary statement for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months in that those statements apply a correction coefficient of 92.3 on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010, while preserving the effect of those statements until the adoption of fresh statements applying a lawful correction coefficient; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the salary statement for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months in that those statements apply a correction coefficient of 92.3 on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010, while preserving the effect of those statements until the adoption of fresh statements applying a lawful correction coefficient;

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 providing a negative response to complaint 328/11 lodged by the applicant in so far as that decision refuses, inter alia, to grant the applicant access to detailed statistical data concerning economic parity between Brussels and Varese in respect of a number of basic headings, including electricity, gas, solid and liquid heating fuel, health and accommodation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 providing a negative response to complaint 328/11 lodged by the applicant in so far as that decision refuses, inter alia, to grant the applicant access to detailed statistical data concerning economic parity between Brussels and Varese in respect of a number of basic headings, including electricity, gas, solid and liquid heating fuel, health and accommodation;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/27

---

Action brought on 26 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-114/11)

2012/C 6/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision to regard certain financial assistance from a Member State to students in higher education as an allowance of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct this financial assistance from the education allowance granted to the applicant, and annulment of the decision to recover amounts unduly received;

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the two decisions that are implicit in the salary statement for March 2011 and adversely affect the applicant, namely (i) the decision to deduct the amount of financial assistance paid by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur de Luxembourg from the education allowance received by the applicant and (ii) the decision to recover amounts unduly received concerning the amount of education allowances received between October 2010 and February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the two decisions that are implicit in the salary statement for March 2011 and adversely affect the applicant, namely (i) the decision to deduct the amount of financial assistance paid by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur de Luxembourg from the education allowance received by the applicant and (ii) the decision to recover amounts unduly received concerning the amount of education allowances received between October 2010 and February 2011;

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the resulting arrears of remuneration together with corresponding default interest, calculated from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the resulting arrears of remuneration together with corresponding default interest, calculated from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points;

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/28

---

Action brought on 27 October 2011 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-115/11)

2012/C 6/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB not to appoint the applicant but another candidate to the post of head of a division within the EIB and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the President of the EIB not to appoint the applicant to the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division within the Credit Risk Directorate of the Risk Management Directorate and not to have awarded him the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division within the Credit Risk Directorate of the Risk Management Directorate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the President of the EIB not to appoint the applicant to the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division within the Credit Risk Directorate of the Risk Management Directorate and not to have awarded him the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division within the Credit Risk Directorate of the Risk Management Directorate;

| — | direct the EIB to take the necessary measures in order to put in place a lawful procedure for filling the post; |
| --- | --- |

—

direct the EIB to take the necessary measures in order to put in place a lawful procedure for filling the post;

| — | find the EIB liable vis-à-vis the applicant in respect of the unlawfulness of the decision to appoint another candidate to the contested post; |
| --- | --- |

—

find the EIB liable vis-à-vis the applicant in respect of the unlawfulness of the decision to appoint another candidate to the contested post;

| — | order the EIB to pay compensation to make good the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant, together with default interest:






  — | non-material damage: EUR 50 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay compensation to make good the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant, together with default interest:

—

non-material damage: EUR 50 000;

| — | material damage in respect of loss of earnings: EUR 436 100; |
| --- | --- |

—

material damage in respect of loss of earnings: EUR 436 100;

| — | order the EIB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs.

---