title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2003 in Case C-245/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten (SENA) v Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (Directive 92/100/EEC — Rental right and lending right and certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property — Article 8(2) — Broadcasting and communication to the public — Equitable remuneration)

text:
5.4.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 83/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             principally as a fuel, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                          Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                                                                                supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and
                        of 13 February 2003                                         out of the European Community;
in Case C-228/00: Commission of the European Communi-                        2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
Classification of the purpose of a shipment of waste (recovery
or disposal) — Incinerated waste — Point R1 of Annex II B
to Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of use principally as a
             fuel or other means to generate energy)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (2003/C 83/01)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 6 February 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-245/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Stichting ter Exploitatie
                                                                             van Naburige Rechten (SENA) v Nederlandse Omroep
In Case C-228/00, Commission of the European Communities                                                Stichting (NOS) (1)
(Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
(Agent: T. Jürgensen, assisted by D. Sellner): Application for a
declaration that by raising unjustified objections against certain           (Directive 92/100/EEC — Rental right and lending right
shipments of waste to other Member States to be used                         and certain rights related to copyright in the field of
principally as a fuel the Federal Republic of Germany has failed             intellectual property — Article 8(2) — Broadcasting and
to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council                  communication to the public — Equitable remuneration)
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into                                                (2003/C 83/02)
and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
the     Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans                      (Rapporteur),
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2003, in
which it:
1.    Declares that by raising unjustified objections to certain             In Case C-245/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      shipments of waste to other Member States to be used                   EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              5.4.2003
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten
(SENA) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS), on the
interpretation of Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/                                           (Fifth Chamber)
EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right
and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of                                         of 13 February 2003
intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken                 in Case C-458/00: Commission of the European Communi-
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                                  ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 February 2003, in which it has ruled:                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
                                                                            Classification of the purpose of a shipment of waste (recovery
                                                                            or disposal) — Incinerated waste — Point R1 of Annex II B
                                                                            to Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of use principally as a
                                                                                fuel or other means to generate energy)
1.    The concept of equitable remuneration in Article 8(2) of
      Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
      rental right and lending right and on certain rights related                                     (2003/C 83/03)
      to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be
      interpreted uniformly in all the Member States and applied                                (Language of the case: French)
      by each Member State; it is for each Member State to
      determine, in its own territory, the most appropriate criteria
      for assuring, within the limits imposed by Community law              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      and Directive 92/100 in particular, adherence to that                                    in the European Court Reports)
      Community concept.
                                                                            In Case C-458/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v Grand Duchy of
2.    Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100 does not preclude a model            Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz), supported by Republic of Austria
      for calculating what constitutes equitable remuneration for           (Agent: C. Pesendorfer): Application for a declaration that by
      performing artists and phonogram producers that operates by           raising unjustified objections to certain shipments of waste to
      reference to variable and fixed factors, such as the number of        another Member State to be used principally as a fuel, in
      hours of phonograms broadcast, the viewing and listening              breach of Article 7(2) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC)
      densities achieved by the radio and television broadcasters           No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control
      represented by the broadcast organisation, the tariffs fixed by       of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European
      agreement in the field of performance rights and broadcast            Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), and of Article 1(f) in
      rights in respect of musical works protected by copyright, the        conjunction with point R1 of Annex II B to Council Directive
      tariffs set by the public broadcast organisations in the              75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),
      Member States bordering on the Member State concerned,                as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May
      and the amounts paid by commercial stations, provided that            1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      that model is such as to enable a proper balance to be                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 7 of
      achieved between the interests of performing artists and              that Regulation and under Article 1(f) in conjunction with
      producers in obtaining remuneration for the broadcast of a            point R1 of Annex II B to that Directive, the Court (Fifth
      particular phonogram, and the interests of third parties in           Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
      being able to broadcast the phonogram on terms that are               er, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
      reasonable, and that it does not contravene any principle of          and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
      Community law.                                                        H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                            a judgment on 13 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                       the costs;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.


title: Case T-185/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2009 — Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM — Zafra Marroquineros (CK CREACIONES KENNYA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA — Earlier Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and earlier national figurative marks CK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2009 — Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM — Zafra Marroquineros (CK CREACIONES KENNYA)
   (Case T-185/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CK CREACIONES KENNYA - Earlier Community figurative mark CK Calvin Klein and earlier national figurative marks CK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 153/69
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, I. Lehmann Novo and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Zafra Marroquineros, SL (Caravaca de la Cruz, Spain) (represented by: J. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2007 (Case R 314/2006-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Zafra Marroquineros, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Calvin Klein Trademark Trust to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-60/12: Action brought on 06 February 2012 — Western Digital and Western Digital Ireland v Commission

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/26

         Action brought on 06 February 2012 — Western Digital and Western Digital Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-60/12)
   2012/C 98/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Western Digital Corp. (Dover, Delaware, United States) and Western Digital Ireland, Ltd (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: F. González Díaz, lawyer, R. Patel, Solicitor and P. Stuart, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to produce the questionnaires sent by it to third parties during the first phase and second phase of its investigation into the proposed acquisition by Seagate of the hard disk drive business of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd;

               —

               Order the defendant to grant access to its pre-notification and post-notification file in the Seagate/Samsung transaction, including, in particular, access to the non-confidential versions of any correspondence and records of contacts between Seagate, Samsung, and the Commission until the notification date, and any internal communications within the Commission — in both the Seagate/Samsung and Western Digital Ireland/Viviti Technologies cases — concerning the prioritization of the two transactions;

               —

               Annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision of the European Commission of 23 November 2011 in Case COMP/M.6203 — Western Digital Ireland/Viviti Technologies, relating to a proceeding under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) and, to the extent necessary, Article 1 of that decision; and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by the adoption and/or application of the so-called ‘priority rule’, as:

                           —

                           The Commission lacked the power to adopt a priority rule based on the date of the notification;

                           —

                           The priority principle is unlawful and violates the general principles of fairness and good administration;

                           —

                           The Commission breached the applicants’ legitimate expectation that the transaction would be assessed as a 5-to-4 merger;

                           —

                           The Commission, through disproportionate pre-notification requests for information, in breach of the principles of good administration, fairness, and non-discrimination, effectively deprived the applicants of the opportunity to be the first-notified transaction.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by the fact that the applicants were precluded from exercising their right of defence, as:

                           —

                           The applicants were not afforded with an opportunity to rebut arguments, assertions, and assumptions that form part of the contested decision but did not form part of the Statement of Objections;

                           —

                           The applicants were not afforded with an opportunity to analyse relevant data and information available to the Commission.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that in the contested decision the defendant makes errors of law and relies on evidence that is factually inaccurate, unreliable, and not capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it, and is based on errors of law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches a fundamental principle of EU law because it imposes disproportionate remedies.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1)


title: Case C-315/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Verias (Greece) by decision of that court of 7 June 2006 — Georgios Diamantis and Others v Fanco AE

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Verias (Greece) by decision of that court of 7 June 2006 — Georgios Diamantis and Others v Fanco AE
   (Case C-315/06)
   (2006/C 224/48)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Monomeles Protodikio Verias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Georgios Diamantis and Others

      Defendant: Fanco AE
   Question referred
   Given that Greek (national) law does not provide for a prior judicial decision where an undertaking or establishment is closed down definitively on the sole initiative of the employer, under Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC (1) does that directive apply to collective redundancies caused by the definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or establishment which has been decided on voluntarily by the employer without a prior judicial decision on the matter?

      (1)  OJ No L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29.


title: Case T-156/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2012 — Since Hardware (Guangzhou) v Council (Dumping — Imports of ironing boards originating in China — Proceeding initiated against a single company — Market economy treatment — Three-month time-limit provided for in the second indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Burden of proof — Determination of injury)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2012 — Since Hardware (Guangzhou) v Council
      (Case T-156/11) (1)

      (Dumping - Imports of ironing boards originating in China - Proceeding initiated against a single company - Market economy treatment - Three-month time-limit provided for in the second indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Burden of proof - Determination of injury)
      (2012/C 331/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd (Canton, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Thomas and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents), Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, (Rochdale, United Kingdom) and Colombo New Scal SpA, (Rovagnate, Italy) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1243/2010 of 20 December 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China produced by the Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd (OJ 2010 L 338, p. 22).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                  Orders Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the Euorpean Union, Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd and Colombo New Scal SpA.

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — CJ v ECDC (Civil service — Contract staff — Fixed term contract — Termination — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Right to be heard — Infringement)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — CJ v ECDC
   (Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Contract staff - Fixed term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard - Infringement))
   (2015/C 198/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented: initially by R. Trott, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, and subsequently by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re in Case F-159/12:

   Application for the annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract, his re-instatement in the service and payment to him of the difference between the emoluments he might have continued to receive and the allowance he receives, with the addition of interest.

      Re in Case F-161/12:

   Application for payment of damages for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to his dismissal.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of 24 February 2012 of the Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control terminating CJ’s contract as a member of the contract staff;

               2)

               Dismisses the action in Case F-159/12 as to the remainder;

               3)

               Dismisses the action in Case F-161/12;

               4)

               Declares that, in Case F-159/12, the parties shall bear their own costs;

               5)

               Declares that, in Case F-161/12, CJ shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in that case;

               6)

               Orders CJ, in Case F-159/12, to pay the Tribunal a sum of EUR 2  000 in order to refund part of the avoidable expenditure which the Tribunal was forced to incur.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013, p. 26 and OJ C 55, 23.2.2013, p. 27.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 June 2000 in Case T-537/93: Hervé Tromeur v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having entered into an undertaking to convert — Production not resumed on expiry of the undertaking)

text:
9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/15
      (c)  The other cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
           be assigned to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and
           Fifth Chambers. Such assignment is to be effected
           on the basis of three separate rotas, reflecting the                                  of 21 June 2000
           order in which the cases are registered at the Court
           Registry:
                                                                        in Case T-537/93: Hervé Tromeur v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Com-
           —     for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the
                                                                                munities (1)
                 EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty,
           —     for the cases concerning the implementation            (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                 of the rules on competition applicable to              Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
                 undertakings,                                          entered into an undertaking to convert — Production not
                                                                                resumed on expiry of the undertaking)
           —     for the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).
                                                                                (2000/C 259/24)
For the purposes of the rota referred to in the first indent of
paragraph 2(c), the assignment of cases concerning intellectual
property to the Second and Fourth Chambers on the basis of                                 (Language of the case: French)
the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall be compensated for
by the assignment of cases to the First, Third and Fifth
Chambers on a pro rata basis.                                           In Case T-537/93: Hervé Tromeur, residing in Fuzunec, France,
                                                                        represented by C. Larzul and F. Buffet, and subsequently by
                                                                        A. Delanoé, of the Rennes Bar, with an address for service in
For the purposes of the rotas referred to in paragraphs 2(a)            Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, v
and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended             Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Colaert and
Composition, presided over by the President of the Court of             M. Núñez Müller) and Commission of the European Communi-
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every third        ties (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Núñez Müller) — application
thime the end of a rota is reached.                                     for compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph
                                                                        of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the
                                                                        second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from          the applicant as a result of his having been prevented
that order on the ground that cases related or with a view to           from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
ensuring an even spread of the workload.                                No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                        application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
                                                                        (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission
Plenary session                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
                                                                        detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred
                                                                        to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
                                                                        L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First Instance of the European
At ist plenary meeting on 4 July 2000, the Court of First               Communities (Single Judge: R.M. Moura Ramos); J. Palacio
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of                 González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First           ment on 21 June 2000, in which it:
Instance that where, following the designation of an Advocate
General pusruant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there
is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance
                                                                        1.    Dismisses the application;
sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance in
accordance with which the President of the Court is to
designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
the case shall be in reverse order to that in which the Judges          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of
the Rules of Procedure, unless the Judge who would thus be
designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be
the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be                    (1) OJ C 314 of 20.11.93.
designated.


title: Case C-135/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy), lodged on 15 March 2010 — SCF Consorzio Fonografici v Marco Del Corso

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy), lodged on 15 March 2010 — SCF Consorzio Fonografici v Marco Del Corso
   (Case C-135/10)
   2010/C 134/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte di Appello di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SCF Consorzio Fonografici

      Respondent: Marco Del Corso

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations of 26 October 1961, the TRIPs Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) directly applicable within the Community legal order?

               2.

               Are the abovementioned sources of uniform international law also directly effective within the context of private-law relationships?

               3.

               Do the concepts of ‘communication to the public’ contained in the abovementioned treaty-law texts mirror the Community concepts contained in Directives 92/100/EEC (1) and 2001/29/EC (2) and, if not, which source should take precedence?

               4.

               Does the broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices engaged in professional economic activity, for the benefit of patients of those practices and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part, constitute ‘communication to the public’ or ‘making available to the public’ for the purposes of the application of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

               5.

               Does such an act of transmission entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2004 in Case C-373/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Sakir Öztürk v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter) (Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 3 of Decision No 3/80 — Principle of equal treatment — Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security for migrant workers — Retirement pension — Early pension in the event of unemployment — Condition whereby the worker must have received unemployment benefits in the Member State concerned)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/25

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 28 April 2004
   in Case C-373/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Sakir Öztürk v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter) (1)

   (Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 3 of Decision No 3/80 - Principle of equal treatment - Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Social security for migrant workers - Retirement pension - Early pension in the event of unemployment - Condition whereby the worker must have received unemployment benefits in the Member State concerned)
   (2004/C 118/43)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-373/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Sakir Öztürk and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter - on the interpretation of Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, which was concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (Journal Officiel 1964 217, p. 3685), and of Article 45(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) - the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann and J. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families must be interpreted as precluding the application of legislation of a Member State which makes entitlement to an early old-age pension in the event of unemployment conditional upon fulfilment of the requirement that the person concerned has received, within a certain period prior to his application for the pension, unemployment insurance benefits from that Member State alone.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003


C 19/44                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25.1.2003
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-160/01 and                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                           T-264/01 ( 1)                                   T-331/01: Huntstown Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation
                                                                           Services Limited v Commission of the European Communities.
                         (2003/C 19/81)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                    (Language of the case: French)
By order of 5 November 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
Cases T-160/01 and T-264/01: Léon Rappe v Commission of                            Removal from the register of Case T-172/02 (1)
the European Communities.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/84)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001 and C 369 of 22.12.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Fourth
        Removal from the register of Case T-294/01 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2003/C 19/82)                                    T-172/02: Laurent Druet v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
By order of 24 October 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-294/01: Lucía Aparicio Chofré v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-199/02 (1)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-331/01 (1)
                                                                           By order of 22 October 2002 the President of the Fourth
                         (2003/C 19/83)                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the case: English)                         T-199/02: Michel van Beek v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case T-89/00: Action brought on 14 April 2000 by Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 163/32              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
Grounds of claim:            — joinder of five appeal cases by          The application is based on the following pleas in law:
                                  the Board of Appeal without
                                  the consent of the party con-
                                                                        — The Council committed a manifest error of assessment in
                                  cerned
                                                                            determining the date for the retroactive application of the
                             — misapplication of Article 4 of               regulation. As it is stated in recital 134 of the regulation,
                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  the anti-dumping proceedings were terminated in order to
                             — misapplication of Article                    respect the principle of non-discrimination with regard to
                                  7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No             imports from other third countries. The applicant submits
                                  40/94                                     that this discrimination has existed since the expiry of the
                                                                            original measures against Japan on 4th December 1997.
                             — misapplication of Article                    The retroactive termination of the proceedings should
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No             therefore apply from that date onwards.
                                  40/94
                                                                        — The Council has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for
                                                                            its determination of the date by which the contested
                                                                            regulation should apply.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 22, 21.1.2000, p. 1.
Action brought on 14 April 2000 by Europe Chemi-Con
(Deutschland) GmbH against the Council of the European
                             Union
                         (Case T-89/00)
                        (2000/C 163/63)
                                                                        Action brought on 18 April 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Case T-90/00)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 14 April 2000 by Europe Chemi-Con                                                (2000/C 163/64)
(Deutschland) GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany), represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Mr. Juan José Gutiérrez
Gisbert, of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the last indent of Article 3 of Council Regulation              European Communities on 18 April 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmus-
    (EC) No 173/2000 in so far as it does not state that                sen, residing at Dalheim, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
    the retroactive effect of the regulation shall apply from           represented by Michel Karp and Joëlle Choucroun, of the
    4 December 1997 onwards;                                            Luxembourg Bar.
— order the Council to bear the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — annul the decision of the Commission of 2 August 1999
                                                                            to apply Article 85 of the Staff Regulations to the mission
                                                                            undertaken by the applicant from 7 to 11 March 1998 to
The applicant seeks the annulment of Article 3 of Council                   Dublin;
Regulation (EC) No 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating
the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay token damages of one franc as
large aluminium electrolytic capacitors originating in Japan,
                                                                            compensation for the non-material damage suffered;
the Republic of Korea and Taiwan(1). It challenges the date
which the Council fixed for the retroactive application of the
regulation, namely 28 February 1999.                                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-28/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Kipp v European Police Office (Europol), (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of the rights of defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/67

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Kipp v European Police Office (Europol),
      (Case F-28/09) (1)

      (Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the staff regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of the rights of defence)
      (2010/C 288/125)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Michael Kipp (The Hague, The Netherlands) (represented by: initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, and subsequently by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer him a permanent post and of the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 in which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to grant Mr Kipp a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  Orders Europol to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 167, 18.07.09, p. 25.


title: Case T-68/05: Action brought on 16 February 2005 by Aker Warnow Werft GmbH and Kværner ASA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/33

         Action brought on 16 February 2005 by Aker Warnow Werft GmbH and Kværner ASA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-68/05)
   (2005/C 106/69)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 February 2005 by Aker Warnow Werft GmbH, established in Rostock-Warnemünde (Germany) and Kværner ASA, established in Oslo (Norway), represented by B. Immenkamp, Solicitor and M. Schütte, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Commission C 6/2000 of 20 October 2004, in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In October 1992, the German privatisation agency (Treuhandanstalt) privatised and sold the East German shipyard Warnow Werft to the Norwegian Kværner group. In the framework of the privatisation, a lump sum contribution to the restructuring of the shipyard, made available in different installments, was offered. The state aid was notified to and approved by the European Commission in separate approval decisions.
   In the contested decision, the Commission concluded that the applicants received more aid than was required to cover the actual contract losses incurred by the shipyard, and that the excess of aid should be recovered.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission committed an error of law and a manifest error of appreciation. According to the applicants, the amount to be recovered as state aid incompatible with the EC Treaty was approved by the Commission in its approval decisions and constitutes existing aid. The applicants submit that the Commission had no right to initiate the formal procedure, to re-assess the compatibility of the aid and to order the recovery of parts of the aid. They submit also that all conditions in the approval decisions of the Commission have been complied with, in particular the obligation to provide Spill-Over Reports and to observe capacity limitations. The applicants claim that the approval decisions did not contain any reservation by the Commission concerning the amount of aid and that all operating aid was approved in a lump sum, following a thorough verification of the necessity of the aid ex ante. Finally, the applicants state that the approval decisions are still in force.
   The applicants furthermore submit that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal in concluding that the amount of state aid received exceeded the level of contract losses incurred. According to the applicants, the amount of the aid indicated in the contested decision is not mentioned at all in the Commission's approval decisions. Also, the amounts approved by the Commission for contract losses would be lower than the actual contract losses incurred. The applicants claim as well that the Commission included in its assessment of the aid received assets that should be considered not as aid, including assets for which Kværner had paid a purchase price. Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission ignored that the amount of aid approved, was only partially received.
   The applicants also submit a violation of the principle of legal certainty. According to the applicants, the Commission did not act in a timely manner while it had all relevant information at its disposal. The applicants submit that the Commission only started its inquiries in 1999, even though it was, according to the applicants, fully informed of all relevant facts in early 1996. The procedure opened in February 2000 would also have been extended to new elements that were never investigated before, and for which the approval decisions did not provide a legal basis.
   Finally, as a subsidiary ground, the applicants submit that the Commission failed to take all restructuring costs into account when determining the amount to be recovered. According to the applicants, much more was spent on the restructuring than the amount of aid received for that purpose.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 May 2000 in Case C-274/97: Commission of the European Communities v Coal Products Ltd (Arbitration clause — Interest rebate)

text:
C 233/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
Administratif, Paris (France) for a preliminary ruling in the             hed in Chesterfield, United Kingdom, represented by K.P.E.
proceedings pending before that court between Gascogne                    Lasok QC, and P. Harris, Barrister, instructed by A. Mott,
Limousin Viandes SA and Office national interprofessionnel                Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
des viandes de l’élevage et de l’aviculture (Orival) on the               Chambers of Zeyen, Beghin, Feider, Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke,
validity, under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, following            56-58 Rue Charles Martel — application by the Commission
amendment, Article 34(2) EC), of Article 4i(2) of Regulation              of the European Communities under Article 42 of the ECSC
(EEC) No 805/68 of the Council on the common organization                 Treaty for the recovery of a sum of ECU 252 558, correspon-
of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council                     ding to an interest rebate which it had granted to Coal Products
Regulation No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 (OJ 1996                        Ltd under a contract to assist Coal Products Ltd in consuming
L 296, p. 50) and Article 50(1) of Commission Regulation                  coal produced in the Community, plus interest at the rate of
(EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed                 8 % as from 1 November 1995, and counterclaim by the
rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for             defendant for the payment of a sum of ECU 46 010, plus
in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common                       interest as from 3 February 1995 — the Court (First Chamber),
organization of the market in beef and repealing Regulations              composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, D.A.O.
(EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992 L 391,                      Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                          General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1996 L 313, p. 9) —                     a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),             1.   Dismisses the application by the Commission of the European
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and Mrs F. Macken, Judges, Advo-                  Communities and the counterclaim by Coal Products Ltd;
cate General: G. Cosmas, Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Admi-
nistrator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May
                                                                          2.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and Coal
2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               Products Ltd to bear their own costs.
Examination of the question submitted has disclosed no factor likely
to affect the validity of Article 4i(2) of Regulation No 805/68 of        (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
the Council on the common organization of the market in beef
and veal, as amended by Council Regulation No 2222/96 of
18 November 1996 and Article 50(1) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in
Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations (EEC)
No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                                of 16 May 2000
                                                                          in Case C-78/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                          the House of Lords): Shirley Preston and Others v
                                                                          Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others and
                                                                              Dorothy Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          (Social policy — Men and women — Equal pay — Members-
                          (First Chamber)                                 hip of an occupational pension scheme — Part-time workers
                                                                          — Exclusion — National procedural rules — Principle of
                          of 16 May 2000                                             effectiveness — Principle of equivalence)
in Case C-274/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                             (2000/C 233/05)
                    ties v Coal Products Ltd (1)
             (Arbitration clause — Interest rebate)                                         (Language of the case: English)
                          (2000/C 233/04)
                                                                          In Case C-78/98 — reference by the House of Lords for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                          Article 234 EC) in the case of Shirley Preston and Others v
                    (Language of the case: English)                       Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others and
                                                                          Dorothy Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc on the
In Case C-274/97: Commission of the European Communities                  interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to
(Agents: P. Oliver and B. Doherty) v Coal Products Ltd, establis-         120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC


title: Case T-368/02: Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 55/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
—     Order the Commission to carry out the partition scheme              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of bailiff M of 19 August 2002, at least in relation to the
      amount of his pension, which under Belgian law has
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September
      protection against the seizure order of bailiff V of
                                                                                2002 in the appeal procedure R 338/2001-1;
      18 March 2002;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the Commission to compensate the applicant
      for the loss (including that incurred through interest
      payments on bridging loans and non-material damage at
      the discretion of the court, not being less than EUR 100,
      together with costs incurred in enforcing his rights)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
      arising from the fact that, since May 2002, his pension
      has been entirely deposited with bailiff M, although the
      Commission is or must be aware that such conduct is
                                                                          Community trade mark         Word mark ‘SnTEM’ — Appli-
      unlawful, the amount of compensation for material
                                                                          applied for:                 cation No 1421734
      damage on account of the continuing illegality to be
      determined in the event of the declaration being granted.
                                                                          Goods or services:           Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Decision before       the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                          Board of Appeal:             examiner
The applicant, a former temporary servant now in retirement,
draws a pension from the Communities. He claims that the                  Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of appeal
Commission has unlawfully made maintenance payments out                   Appeal:
of his pension to his former wives.
                                                                          Pleas in law:                —      Infringement                of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
The applicant argues that, in making deductions from his                                                      Regulation (EC) No 40/94
pension, the Commission disregarded the prescribed legal and                                                  since the mark is not descrip-
administrative rules and infringed his right to a proper hearing.                                             tive.
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke                        Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-367/02)                                                          (Case T-368/02)
                         (2003/C 55/77)                                                            (2003/C 55/78)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                       9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.                 represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 55/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September                Community trade mark          Word mark ‘SnMIX’ — Appli-
      2002 in the appeal procedure R 337/2001-1;                         applied for:                  cation No 1422294
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Goods or services:            Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                         Board of Appeal:              examiner
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘SnPUR’ — Appli-
applied for:                  cation No 1421775                          Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
Goods or services:            Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                              allic semi-finished products in the        Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement                of
                              form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,                                           Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                              sections and rods)                                                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                since the mark is not descrip-
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the                                                 tive.
Board of Appeal:              examiner
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of           Action brought on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
                                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94             Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG and
                                    since the mark is not descrip-       six other undertakings against the Commission of the
                                    tive.                                                   European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-370/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/80)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-369/02)                                  European Communities on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
                                                                         Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG, established
                                                                         in Lehen/Pfaffing (Germany), Bayerland eG, established in
                         (2003/C 55/79)                                  Nuremberg (Germany), Bergpracht-Milchwerk GmbH & Co,
                                                                         established in Tettnang (Germany), Hochland AG, established
                  (Language of the case: German)                         in Heimenkirch (Germany), Käserei Champignon Hofmeister
                                                                         GmbH & Co. KG, established in Lauben (Germany), Milchwerk
                                                                         Crailsheim-Dinkelsbühl eG, established in Crailsheim (Germ-
                                                                         any) and Rücker GmbH, established in Aurich (Germany),
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           represented by J. Salzwedel and M.J. Werner, lawyers, with an
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                  address for service in Luxembourg.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                      The applicants claim that the Court should:
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.
                                                                         —     annul the inclusion, pursuant to Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the
                                                                               name ‘Feta’, of the name ‘Feta’ (PDO) as a protected
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September                      designation of origin (PDO) in the register of protected
      2002 in the appeal procedure R 335/2001-1;                               designations of origin;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-279/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale del Riesame di Verbania (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Matteo Minesi

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale del Riesame di Verbania (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Matteo Minesi
   (Case C-279/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale del Riesame di Verbania

      Party to the main proceedings

   Matteo Minesi

      Question referred

   The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; (b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired following a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence); (c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.


4. 3 . 95        [_EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                         No C 54/1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                   Swearing of the oath by the new members of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                            Communities
                                                             ( 95/C 54/01 )
          The following have been appointed judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by
          decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 1 January 1995 ( l ) and
          have taken the oath before the Court of Justice on 1 8 January 1995 : Leif Sevón, Peter Jann and Hans
          Ragnemalm.
          The following have been appointed Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European
          Communities by decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 1 and
          18 January 1995 (2) and have taken the oath before the Court of Justice on 18 January 1995 :
          Dàmaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer and Nial Fennelly.
                Swearing of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                            Communities
                                                             ( 95/C 54/02 )
          The following have been appointed judges of the Court of First Instance of the European
          Communities by decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of
          1 January 1995 (3) and have taken the oath before the Court of Justice on 18 January 1995 : Pernilla
          Lindh, Virpi Tiili and Josef Azizi.
          (!) OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p . 223 .
          (2 ) OJ No L 17, 25 . 1 . 1995 , p. 14 .
          ( 3 ) OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p. 224 .


               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/43

         Removal from the Register of Case T-205/03, T-206/03, T-207/03, T-208/03, T-209/03, and T-210/03 (1)

   (2005/C 106/85)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 25 January 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-205/03, T-206/03,T-207/03, T-208/03, T-209/03, and T-210/03, Nicolas Georgiopoulos and Others, Panayotis Adamopoulos and Others, Athanassios Rammos, Stavroula Gogos-Skarpatzi and Others, Nikolaos Andrikakis and Others, Konstantinos Athanassopoulos and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-89/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by order of that Court of 18 February 2004 in the case of Mediakabel B.V. against Commissariaat voor de Media

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by order of that Court of 18 February 2004 in the case of Mediakabel B.V. against Commissariaat voor de Media
   (Case C-89/04)
   (2004/C 94/57)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Raad van State (Council of State) of 18 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 20 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mediakabel B.V. against Commissariaat voor de Media on the following questions:

               1 a.

               Is the term ‘television broadcasting’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/552/EEC (1) to be interpreted as not covering an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC (2), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC (3), but as covering services such as those set out in the indicative list of services not covered by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, including ‘near-video on-demand services’, contained in Annex V to Directive 98/34/EC, in particular subparagraph (3), which therefore do not constitute ‘information society services’?

               1 b.

               If the answer to question 1a is in the negative, how should a distinction be drawn between the term ‘television broadcasting’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/552/EEC and the term ‘communication services providing items of information or other messages on individual demand’ also set out therein?

               2 a.

               On the basis of which criteria must it be determined whether a service such as that at issue, which involves encoded signals, transmitted over a network, of a range of films selected by the provider, which subscribers can, in return for a separate payment per film and using a key sent by the provider on individual demand, decode and view at various times determined by the provider, and which contains elements of an (individual) information society service and also elements of a television broadcasting service, constitutes a television broadcasting service or an information society service?

               2 b.

               In this regard is particular significance to be attributed to the standpoint of the subscriber or rather to that of the service provider? Is the kind of services with which the service concerned is in competition relevant in this regard?

               3.

               In that connection is it relevant that,

                           —

                           on the one hand, classification of a service such as that at issue as an ‘information society service’ to which Directive 89/552/EEC does not apply, might undermine the effectiveness of that directive, in particular as regards the objectives underlying the requirement thereunder to reserve a specific percentage of transmission time for European works, and,

                           —

                           on the other, if Directive 89/552/EEC does apply, the requirement thereunder to reserve a specific percentage of transmission time for European works is not entirely apposite because the subscribers pay per film and can only view the film which has been paid for?

      (1)  OJ L 298 of 17.10.1989, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ L 204 of 21.07.1998, p. 37.

      (3)  OJ L 217 of 5.08.1998, p. 18.


title: Case T-236/14: Action brought on 16 April 2014  — Kronotex and Others v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/15

         Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Kronotex and Others v Commission
   (Case T-236/14)
   2014/C 223/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany), Kronoply GmbH (Heiligengrabe) and K Face GmbH (Heiligengrabe) (represented by: H. Janssen and G. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) and the special compensation regime did not constitute an allocation of State or State-controlled resources. All the facts relevant to the qualification of those measures were determined in the preliminary proceedings between the Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. There were no longer any doubts, which the Commission should have found in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty

                           —

                           The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicants observe in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of audi alteram partem

                           —

                           The applicants also claim that the defendant adopted the contested decision without previously giving the applicants the opportunity to provide comments.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/3

         Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance
   (2007/C 69/05)
   Appointed Judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 January 2007 (1), for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 August 2007 and the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 August 2010, respectively, Mr Chipev and Mr Ciucă took the oath before the Court on 12 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2007, p. 19.


title: Case T-150/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LOOPIA — Earlier Community word marks LOOP and LOOPY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)
   (Case T-150/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LOOPIA - Earlier Community word marks LOOP and LOOPY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 331/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Loopia AB (Västerås, Sweden) (represented by: P. Håkon-Schmidt and N. Ringen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 (Case R 1812/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Loopia AB.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 January 2010 (Case R 1812/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred by Telefónica O2 Germany for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               4.

               Orders Loopia AB to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-67/05: Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Aytan's Manufacturing Company (UK) Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/32

         Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Aytan's Manufacturing Company (UK) Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-67/05)
   (2005/C 106/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 February 2005 by Aytan's Manufacturing Company (UK) Limited, established in London (United Kingdom) represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister and M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.
   Criminal Clothing Limited, established in Poole (United Kingdom) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 8 December 2004 in case R 309/2004-1;

               —

               Order that the Office and other parties shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Criminal Clothing Limited

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark CRIMINAL for goods in classes 3, 9 and 25 (articles of clothing etc.) — application No 1676 220

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National mark CRIMINAL DAMAGE for goods in class 25 (articles of clothing etc.)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

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

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).


title: Cases C-303/99 and C-304/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia, Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/13
— Infringement of Community law, inasmuch as the contest-                  1. Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
     ed order denied the appellants a form of effective legal                  1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
     protection, contrary to the provisions of Article 6 of the                supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
     European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights                    lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directi-
     in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European                ve 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
     Union, by wrongly regarding the preliminary ruling pro-                   taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that
     cedure as an obligatory means of legal protection of the                  the administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate
     interests of individuals.                                                 for registration of ‘other company documents’ for each of
                                                                               the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
                                                                               sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
                                                                               partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private
                                                                               limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           2. Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                         munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                       sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the                           sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA                      according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
                 against Ministero delle Finanze                               that Law entered into force (2.5% per annum) and not
                                                                               according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
                 (Cases C-303/99 and C-304/99)                                 respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
                                                                               subsequently amended?
                          (1999/C 333/27)
                                                                           (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
Terza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA
against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                 Hamburg by order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10              case of Banque Internationale pour l’Afrique Occidentale
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969                 S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt für Großunterneh-
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       men in Hamburg
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                        (Case C-306/99)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                                           (1999/C 333/29)
limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                         European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
                                                                           Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) of 29 April 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Internationale pour
                                                                           l’Afrique Occidentale S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt
                                                                           für Großunternehmen in Hamburg on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                   I. Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the case
      of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                           Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction in the procedure
                                                                           for preliminary rulings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (old
                          (Case C-305/99)                                  version) (Article 234 EC in the version in force from 1 May
                                                                           1999 under the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997 (new
                          (1999/C 333/28)                                  version)) to interpret the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC
                                                                           of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11, ‘the Directive’) not only
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,                 where there is doubt as to the application in conformity with
Jerza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court               the Directive of the national commercial law on accounts of
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                capital companies [in this case, Paragraph 264 et seq. of the
case of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze on the              German Handelsgesetzbuch (Commercial Code, ‘the HGB’)],
following questions:                                                       but also:


title: Case C-161/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 43 EC — National legislation laying down the conditions for registration of partnerships or companies on application by nationals of the new Member States — Procedure for certification of self-employed status)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-161/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - National legislation laying down the conditions for registration of partnerships or companies on application by nationals of the new Member States - Procedure for certification of self-employed status)
   (2009/C 44/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Winkler, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — National legislation laying down the conditions for registration of businesses owned by third-country nationals, applicable also to Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Polish, Slovene and Slovak nationals — Obligation for all members of partnerships and for minority shareholders in limited liability companies who perform activities which are typical of a work relationship to follow a special procedure for determining the applicant's self-employed status, in the course of which they must prove their influence on the management of the business they wish to have registered in the Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring for the registration of partnerships or companies in the commercial register on application by persons who are nationals of the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 — with the exception of the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta — and are members of a partnership or have minority holdings in a limited liability company, a determination by the Arbeitsmarktservice that they are self-employed or the presentation of a work permit exemption certificate, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-409/12: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court — Fines — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of good administration — Rights of the defence — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Erroneous application — Starting amount — Extent of contribution to the infringement — Deterrence multiplier)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission
   (Case T-409/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court - Fines - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Erroneous application - Starting amount - Extent of contribution to the infringement - Deterrence multiplier))
   (2016/C 078/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Denton, J. Vyavaharkar, R. Browne, L. Philippou, M. Roald, and J. Robinson, Solicitors, and K. Haegeman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 4381 of 27 June 2012 amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to the extent that it was addressed to Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Toshiba Corp. (Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — Fines) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for the amendment of Article 1 of that decision with a view to the annulment or, failing that, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mitsubishi Electric Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.