14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 10 April 2012 — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) Sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-169/12)

2012/C 209/02

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Questions referred

Are the provisions of Article 66(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, as amended) (‘Directive 2006/112’) to be interpreted as meaning that where a taxable person issues an invoice documenting the supply of a service covered by the power conferred on Member States by that article (derogation from Articles 63, 64 and 65 of Directive 2006/112), it is possible to determine the chargeability of the tax (liability to pay the tax) on the basis of Article 66(b) of Directive 2006/112 as arising on the date of payment, but no later than 30 days from the date on which the service is supplied?

Are the provisions of Article 66(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding the Polish national provisions in Article 19(13)(2)(a) and (b) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw No 54, item 535, as amended) under which the time when the liability to pay the tax arises (the event on whose occurrence the tax becomes chargeable in respect of certain transactions) occurs in respect of transport and shipping services on receipt of payment in full or in part, but no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even where an invoice laying down a later deadline for payment is issued and presented to the purchaser no later than seven days after the service is supplied and the purchaser of the service has the right to deduct input tax during the period in which he received the invoice, irrespective of whether or not he has paid for the service?

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 12 April 2012 — Alfred Hirmann v Immofinanz AG

(Case C-174/12)

2012/C 209/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfred Hirmann

Defendant: Immofinanz AG

Intervener: Aviso Zeta AG

Questions referred

Is a national rule which provides for the liability of a public limited liability company, as issuer, towards a purchaser of shares for infringement of obligations relating to the provision of information laid down in legislation governing securities, in particular the following:

—	Articles 6 and 25 of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of 11 March 2008; (1)

—	Articles 7, 17 and 28 of Directive 2004/109/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004; and

—	Article 14 of Directive 2003/6/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003,

compatible with Articles 12, 15, 16, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC (4) of the Council of [13 December 1976], as amended?

Are the provisions of Articles 12, 15, 16 and in particular 18, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC, as amended, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which states that, as part of the liability referred to in Question 1, a public limited liability company must refund the purchase price to the purchaser and redeem the shares purchased?

Are the provisions of Articles 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC of the Council, as amended, to be interpreted as meaning that the liability of a public limited liability company as referred to in Question 1

—	may also include the company’s net assets (subscribed capital plus reserves within the meaning of Article 15(1)(a) of the aforementioned directive), and

—	may arise even if it is capable of rendering the company insolvent?

Are the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2009/101/EC (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the retroactive cancellation of a share acquisition in the sense that cancellation of the share purchase contract is to be regarded as producing ex nunc effects (see Case C-215/08 E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden [2010] ECR I-02947)?

Are the provisions of Articles 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC of the Council, as amended, and Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that liability is limited to the value of the shares — thus, in the case of a listed company, the price of those shares on the stock exchange — at the time when the claim is brought, with the result that the refund which the shareholder receives may be less than the price he originally paid for his shares?

(1) Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 amending Directive 2003/71/EC on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2008 L 76, p. 37.

(2) Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, OJ 2004 L 390, p. 38.

(3) Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16.

(4) Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, OJ 1977 L 26, p. 1.

(5) Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2009 L 258, p. 11.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 17 April 2012 — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

(Case C-178/12)

2012/C 209/04

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rafaela Rivas Montes

Defendant: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

Questions referred

Is it consistent with the Community principle of equality (in the terms in which it has been defined by the Court of Justice) for a given public authority (here the IMDECO), for the purposes of calculating its employees’ length-of-service salary increments, to take into account solely the character of the legal relationship linking the authority and the employees, either of a public service or of a contractual kind, and consequently in the former case (civil servants), in accordance with the Ley estatal funcionarial vigente, for it to take into account without distinction all service, current and past, performed in any part of the public authorities in general (that is, in that particular public authority — IMDECO — or in any another type of public authority), while in contrast, in the latter case (staff engaged under employment contracts), in accordance with the Ley estatal laboral vigente and the case law interpreting it, it takes into account only the service previously provided to that particular public authority (IMDECO), provided however that there is no temporary break in the chain of contracts covering the services which would suggest that the essential unity of the legal-employment relationship had been broken, insofar as, in such a case, the days worked immediately before such a break are disregarded?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative (that is, if the Court of Justice considers that such an action carried out by a public authority — in this case IMDECO — infringes the Community principle of equality), should the restoration of the principle of equality be carried out through the application of the Ley estatal funcionarial to staff engaged under employment contracts?

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy (Poland), lodged on 23 April 2012 — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

(Case C-190/12)

2012/C 209/05

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy

Questions referred

Does Article 56(1) EC (now Article 63 TFEU) apply to an assessment of the permissibility of the application by a Member State of provisions of national law which draw a distinction between the legal situation of taxable persons in such a way that they grant, as part of a general tax exemption, an exemption from flat-rate corporation tax on dividends received by investment funds established in a Member State of the European Union but do not provide for such an exemption for an investment fund which is resident for tax purposes in the USA?

Can the difference between the treatment of funds established in a non-member country and that of funds established in a Member State of the European Union, as provided for in national law with regard to the exemption relating to corporation tax, be regarded as legally justified in the light of Article 58(1)(a) EC, in conjunction with Article 58(3) EC (now Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 65(3) TFEU)?

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), lodged on 3 May 2012 — Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd

(Case C-210/12)

2012/C 209/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Party to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd

Questions referred

Is Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (1) to be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for a plant protection product if a valid marketing authorisation was granted in accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 91/414/EEC?

2.	If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is it necessary under Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 for the marketing authorisation to be still in force at the time of application for the certificate?

3.	If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: Is Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 to be interpreted as meaning that an application can be lodged even before the period mentioned in that provision starts to run?

(1) OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 May 2012 — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira and Others v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

(Case C-213/12)

2012/C 209/07

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira, Maria do Carmo Ferreira dos Santos, Rosa Fernanda Santos Ferreira

Respondent: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 1(1) and Article 3 of the Second Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Third Directive, (2) be interpreted as preventing national legislation from excluding any entitlement to compensation for non-financial damage for members of the driver’s family arising from the driver’s death when the accident is attributed exclusively to the driver’s fault?

(1) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(2) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles. (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 May 2012 — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

(Case C-222/12)

2012/C 209/08

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tartu Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. Karuse AS

Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

Question referred

Must the expression ‘in connection with road maintenance’ used in the definition of the exception permitted in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as covering a tipping lorry with a laden weight of 25.5 tonnes carrying gravel along a public highway from a quarry to a site of road improvement and maintenance works?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto, (Portugal) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

(Case C-264/12)

2012/C 209/09

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

Defendant: Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

Questions referred

1.	Must the principle of equal treatment, from which the prohibition of discrimination derives, be interpreted as being applicable to public sector employees?

Is the non-payment by the State of previously due holiday and Christmas allowances, by means of the Lei do Orçamento de Estado para 2012, applicable only to persons employed in the public sector or by a public undertaking, contrary to the principle of prohibition of discrimination in that it discriminates on the basis of the public nature of the employment relationship?

Must the right to working conditions that respect dignity, laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful to make salary cuts without the employee’s consent, if the contract of employment is not first altered to that effect?

Must the right to working conditions that respect dignity, laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that employees have the right to fair remuneration which ensures that they and their families can enjoy a satisfactory standard of living?

As the suspension of payment of holiday and Christmas allowances is not the only possible measure and is not necessary and fundamental to the efforts to consolidate public finances in a serious economic and financial crisis in the country, is it contrary to the right laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to put at risk the standard of living and the financial commitments of employees and their families who did not reckon with a reduction in their annual income in the amount of two months’ salary?

6.	Is such a reduction in the amount of two months’ salary by the Portuguese State contrary to the right to working conditions that respect dignity in that it was unforeseeable and unexpected by the employees?

Is the abovementioned Lei do Orçamento de Estado para 2012, which establishes that the rules governing suspension of the payment of the allowances referred to above cannot be derogated from by collective regulatory agreements and takes precedence over such agreements, contrary to the right to collective bargaining?

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/7

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Imperial Chemical Industries v European Commission

(Case T-214/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Methacrylates market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Participation in a part of the cartel - Rights of the defence - Fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity of the infringement - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Principle of sound administration - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Duration of procedure - Reasonable time)

2012/C 209/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, formerly Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by D. Anderson QC, H. Rosenblatt, B. Lebrun, lawyers, W. Turner, S. Berwick and T. Soames, Solicitors, subsequently by R. Wesseling and C. Swaak and lastly by R. Wesseling, C. Swaak and F. ten Have, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by V. Bottka, I. Chatzigiannis and F. Amato, subsequently by V. Bottka, I. Chatzigiannis and F. Arbault and lastly by V. Bottka and J. Bourke, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed under that provision.

Operative part of the judgment:

The Court:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/7

Order of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert (citydogs)

(Case T-444/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Applicant’s failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 209/11

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: La City (La Courneuve, France) (represented initially by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner and R. Pethke, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Andreas Bücheler and Konstanze Ewert (Engelskirchen, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 233/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between (1) La City and (2) Mr Andreas Bücheler and Ms Konstanze Ewert.

Operative part of the order

1.	There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

2.	La City, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Mr Andreas Bücheler and Ms Konstanze Ewert shall each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/7

Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature)

(Case T-191/12)

2012/C 209/12

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher and C. Onken, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Textiles Well SA (Le Vigan, France)

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 15 February 2012 in case R 2552/2010-1;

—	Reject the Opposition No 1299967; and

—	Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark ‘wellness inspired by nature’, for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No W00924808

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 527630 of the word mark ‘WELL’, for goods in class 25; French trade mark registration No 99804486 of the word mark ‘WELLNESS’, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and refused protection to the international registration for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/8

Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Bauer Consumer Media (GOLF WORLD)

(Case T-194/12)

2012/C 209/13

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: R. Hacon, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bauer Consumer Media Ltd (Peterborough, United Kingdom)

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 9 February 2012 in case R 239/2011-1;

—	Refuse the application in suit for all goods and services for which it was published for opposition;

—	Alternatively, the evidence of use be deemed sufficient and the opposition be remitted to the Opposition Division to determine the issue of the conflict between the marks in question; and

—	Award to the opponent its costs in the opposition proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and in this appeal and that the appeal fees be refunded.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7070147

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 465586 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Danish trade mark registration No 541/1991 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; French trade mark registration No 1551025 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Greek trade mark registration No 96430 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Italian trade mark registration No 575282 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Spanish trade mark registration No 1308477 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Swedish trade mark registration No 229611 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Portuguese trade mark registration No 259281 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Irish trade mark registration No 113474 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/9

Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)

(Case T-195/12)

2012/C 209/14

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nuna International BV (Erp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Alpera Plazas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. (Bremen, Germany)

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 15 February 2012 in case R 476/2011-1; and

—	Grant the contested community trade mark application for all the goods designated in the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘nuna’, for goods in classes 12, 18, 20, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 6239743

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 application No 6218879 of the word mark ‘NANU’; Community trade mark No 6218945 of the word mark ‘NANA’ for goods and services in classes 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34 and 35; Community trade mark No 6217814 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 35; German trade mark No 36647710 of the word mark ‘NANU’; German trade mark No 39804075 of the word mark ‘NANA’; German trade mark No 1054703 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’; International trade mark registration No 557176 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/9

Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)

(Case T-197/12)

2012/C 209/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

—	Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;

—	Subsidiary and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;

—	Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark, in colours ‘METRO’, for amongst others services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7585045

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7111974 of the figurative mark in colours ‘GRUPOMETROPOLIS’, for services in class 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/10

Action brought on 8 May 2012 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission

(Case T-199/12)

2012/C 209/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Euro-Link Consultants Ltd (Bucharest, Romania) and European Profiles SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine, dated 28 February 2012, contested in the present action, given in the framework of the tender EuropeAid/131567/C/SER/UA ‘Crimean tourism diversification and support project’; as well as subsequent decisions of the same authority and of the director of the DG Development of the European Commission issued in the subject-matter;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to state reasons, stressing that

—

case-law and legislation impose a duty on the defendant to elaborate on the advantages of the selected tender clearly, instead of merely contesting the evidence the applicants brought forward; a good administration has to examine and address the allegations correctly, all the more so when various aggravating factors intensify this requirement.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the essential procedural requirement to respect the applicable procedure, stressing that

—	the evaluation procedure the committee followed was vitiated by irregularities, of which the defendant was aware and did not take into account prior to publishing the results. Thus, the subsequent decisions are unlawful, to the extent that they are based on the result of these irregularities.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of equal treatment and misuse of powers, stressing that

—	the illegal procedure was only applied in the case of the applicants, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. It also appears that the sole purpose of the illegal procedure was to eliminate the applicants from the first place in the evaluation list.

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/10

Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)

(Case T-205/12)

2012/C 209/17

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in Case R 387/2011-1;

—	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 ‘LIBERTE american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — application No 7 481 211

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ for goods in Classes 14 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/11

Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)

(Case T-206/12)

2012/C 209/18

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in Case R 411/2011-1;

—	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 ‘LIBERTE american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — application No 7 481 328

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ for goods in Classes 14 and 34

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/11

Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Shoes with red aglets)

(Case T-208/12)

2012/C 209/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by M. Gail, lawyer)

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

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 23 February 2012 in Case R 1552/2011-1;

—	Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Other mark relating to shoes with laces at the end of which are red aglets, for goods in Class 25 — Application No 9 130 361

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

—	Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

—	Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/12

Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

(Case T-210/12)

2012/C 209/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—	Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV 2 Danmark A/S;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging essentially that the European Commission erred in law when it failed to include in its assessment aid granted to TV 2 Danmark A/S through 8 regional TV 2 broadcasting stations.

In this regard, the applicant submits that the broadcasts provided free of charge by the regional broadcasting stations, which are financed by licence fees, to TV 2 Danmark A/S constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, it is recalled that according to the public service licence issued to TV 2 Danmark A/S by the Minster of Culture, TV 2 Danmark A/S retains the advertising revenue generated by the ‘advertisement slots’ in the regional broadcast.

The applicant further alleges that by disregarding the State aid provided to TV 2 Danmark A/S through the regional broadcasting stations, the defendant has not considered the financial situation of TV 2 Danmark A/S in the light of the full spectrum of the revenues of such.

Due to this failure, the applicant alleges that the entire assessment made by the defendant of the restructuring plan is based on erroneous assumptions concerning TV 2 Danmark A/S’s financial situation. Therefore, the applicant alleges that the defendant has not been in a position to confirm that the conditions laid down in its own Guidelines (1) are met.

Consequently, the applicant alleges that the defendant has failed to comply with the criteria defined by the Commission itself in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and ultimately in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, when it assessed the rescue and restructuring aid to TV 2 Danmark A/S.

(1) Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2)

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/12

Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)

(Case T-211/12)

2012/C 209/21

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG (Ehrenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kirchgäßner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG (Neuss, Germany)

Form of order sought

—

Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 351/2011-1 as follows: The decision of the Opposition Division is annulled to the extent to which it has been the subject of the appeal, and the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

—	Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — application No 8 178 576

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Silesia’ for goods in Classes 2, 3, 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/13

Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON)

(Case T-239/12)

2012/C 209/22

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd (Nashik, India) (represented by: R. Egerer, D. Jochim and A. Kolb, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany)

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 March 2012 in Case R 2546/2010-1;

—	Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Jyoti Ceramic Industries

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘ZIECON’ for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 40 (application No 8 272 271)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DeguDent GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘CERCON’ for goods in Classes 5, 9 and 10

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and registration refused

Pleas in law:

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

—	Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rules 50(1) and 19(1) and (3) of the implementing regulation

14.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/14

Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ v EMA

(Case F-51/12)

2012/C 209/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s request for renewal of his temporary staff contract by the European Medicines Agency.

Form of order sought

—	annul the decision of 1 September 2011 by which the EMA rejected the applicant’s request of 22 August 2011 for renewal of his temporary staff contract;

—	order the European Medicines Agency to pay to the applicant, on a provisional basis and subject to increase, the sum of EUR 1;

—	order the European Medicines Agency to pay the costs.

		ISSN 1977-091X doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.209.eng
Official Journal of the European Union		C 209

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 55 14 July 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 209/01	Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 200, 7.7.2012	1

	V Announcements
	COURT PROCEEDINGS
	Court of Justice
2012/C 209/02	Case C-169/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 10 April 2012 — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) Sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów	2

2012/C 209/03	Case C-174/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 12 April 2012 — Alfred Hirmann v Immofinanz AG	2

2012/C 209/04	Case C-178/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 17 April 2012 — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)	3

2012/C 209/05	Case C-190/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Bydgoszczy (Poland), lodged on 23 April 2012 — Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy	4

2012/C 209/06	Case C-210/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), lodged on 3 May 2012 — Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd	4

2012/C 209/07	Case C-213/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 7 May 2012 — Fernando Casimiro dos Santos Ferreira and Others v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal S.A.	5

2012/C 209/08	Case C-222/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 11 May 2012 — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet	5

2012/C 209/09	Case C-264/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto, (Portugal) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, S.A.	5

	General Court
2012/C 209/10	Case T-214/06: Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Imperial Chemical Industries v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Methacrylates market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Participation in a part of the cartel — Rights of the defence — Fines — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Gravity of the infringement — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Duration of procedure — Reasonable time)	7

2012/C 209/11	Case T-444/09: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert (citydogs) (Community trade mark — Appointment of a new representative — Applicant’s failure to act — No need to adjudicate)	7

2012/C 209/12	Case T-191/12: Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature)	7

2012/C 209/13	Case T-194/12: Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Bauer Consumer Media (GOLF WORLD)	8

2012/C 209/14	Case T-195/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)	9

2012/C 209/15	Case T-197/12: Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)	9

2012/C 209/16	Case T-199/12: Action brought on 8 May 2012 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission	10

2012/C 209/17	Case T-205/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)	10

2012/C 209/18	Case T-206/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)	11

2012/C 209/19	Case T-208/12: Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Shoes with red aglets)	11

2012/C 209/20	Case T-210/12: Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission	12

2012/C 209/21	Case T-211/12: Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)	12

2012/C 209/22	Case T-239/12: Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Jyoti Ceramic Industries v OHIM — DeguDent (ZIECON)	13

2012/C 209/23	Case T-59/12: Order of the General Court of 25 May 2012 — Planet v European Commission	13

	European Union Civil Service Tribunal
2012/C 209/24	Case F-51/12: Action brought on 7 May 2012 — ZZ v EMA	14

2012/C 209/25	Case F-137/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 June 2012 — Dergam v European Commission	14