title: Action brought on 3 January 1996 by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-2/96)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           I EN 1              Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 64/23
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Lando Tinelli                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        Case T-242/95 )                             — order the defendants to pay to the applicant milk quota
                         ( 96/C 64/44                                   compensation ( SLOM-II ) for the period from 2 April
                                                                        1984 to 13 June 1991 , amounting to DM 118 436,52 ,
                                                                        together with 8 % interest from 19 May 1992, and to
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        pay the costs of the proceedings and the applicants'
                                                                        experts ' fees in the sum of DM 1 961,90,
An action against the Commission of the European                    — stay the proceedings.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
1995 by Lando Tinelli, a former official of the Commission          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the European Communities, residing in Rome,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the             in Case T-20/94 .
Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
Hardt .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Action brought on 3 January 1996 by Neue Maxhütte
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from
     January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
                                                                    Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
     application,
                                                                                Case T-2/96 )
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their                                        ( 96/C 64/46 )
     entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
     the dates on which they fell due,                                             (Language of the case: German)
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 3 January 1996
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those          by      Neue      Maxhütte        Stahlwerke    GmbH         of
in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission .                 Sulzbach-Rosenberg ( Germany), represented by Rainer
                                                                    Bierwagen ( Rechtsanwalt ) of Brussels, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and
                                                                    Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 2 January 1996 by Bernhard
                                                                    — annul Commission Decision K(95 ) 2828 final of
Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering Gesellschaft
bürgerlichen Rechts against the Council of the European                  18 October 1995 in so far as it affects the applicant,
Union and the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                        proceedings.
                          Case T-l /96 )
                          ( 96/C 64/45 )
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: German)                      The applicant, Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH of
                                                                     Sulzbach-Rosenberg, the ECSC steel producer to which
An action against the Council of the European Union and             loans described by the Commission as aids were granted,
the Commission of the European Communities was brought              maintains that the contested Decision infringes essential
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                  procedural requirements and principles.
 Communities on 2 January 1996 by Bernhard
 Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering Gesellschaft             In its submission, the Decision contained incorrect and
 bürgerlichen Rechts, Borken, represented by Bernd                   inadequate factual findings concerning the alleged aid .
 Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten and
 Dr. Frank Schulze, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an                  The proceedings concerning the privatization of Neue
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Maxhütte and the granting of the loans have the same
 Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .                              subject-matter, since the granting of the loans is part of the
 ---pagebreak---  No C 64/24             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
 search for a successful means of privatization. By opening           The applicants claim that the Court should :
two sets of proceedings and not joining them in any way, the
 Commission artificially divided a subject-matter that was
 one and the same. The Decision should be set aside by                — order the Commission to pay the additional
reason of that unlawful division of the proceedings .                     remuneration resulting from applying the Berlin
                                                                          weighting for Germany to the part of the applicants '
                                                                          remuneration transferred in German marks during the
Article 2 of the Decision requires repayment of the alleged               period from 1 October 1990 to 31 December 1994,
aids by the undertakings concerned . As stated above, the
two sets of proceedings are inseparably related . In the event
of a court decision in favour of privatization in principle, the
loans granted would be set off and the second proceeding              — order the Commission to pay interest for delay on such
would become irrelevant. In this situation, the applicant is              additional remuneration at 10% per annum,
obliged to challenge the Commission Decision of
 18 October 1995 . In order to provide effective legal
protection for the applicant, either the investigation or the         — in so far as necessary, annul the Commission Decisions
repayment obligation in Article 2 should have been                        of 9 March 1995 and 4 October 1995 , rejecting the
suspended pending the court decision concerning                           applicants' claim and their complaint respectively,
privatization.
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The Commission did not give the applicant a proper hearing
before making its Decision, and did not send the views of
competitors to the applicant for comment.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The loans granted did not constitute aid within the meaning
of Article 4 (c ) of the ECSC Treaty. That was apparent from
                                                                     The applicants, who are Commission officials employed in
the facts, the Commission having misunderstood the                    Luxembourg, state that, using their right under Annex VII
circumstances which led the Region of Bavaria to grant the
                                                                     to the Staff Regulations, they had part of their remuneration
loans . From the legal point of view, an aid can only exist if a     transferred to Germany. Under Article 17 ( 3 ) of Annex VII,
private investor in a similar position would not have made a
                                                                     the amounts transferred were adjusted by the coefficient
similar loan . That requirement was not satisfied in this
case .
                                                                     resulting from the ratio between the weighting for Germany
                                                                     and the weighting for Luxembourg. Until 1 July 1994, the
                                                                     date from which Council Regulation ( ECSC, EC, Euratom )
                                                                     No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect
                                                                     from 1 July 1 994, the remuneration and pensions of officials
                                                                     and other servants of the European Communities and the
                                                                     weightings applied thereto ( OJ No L 335 , 1994, p. 1 ) took
                                                                     effect, the weighting for Germany had remained fixed at the
                                                                     Bonn level, although Berlin had been proclaimed the capital
                                                                     of Germany on 3 October 1990 . The applicants consider
                                                                     that they are entitled to additional payments, reflecting the
                                                                     weighting for Germany calculated at the Berlin level, in
Action brought on 10 January 1996 by Roland Haas and                 respect of the part of their remuneration transferred to
four others against the Commission of the European                   Germany as from 1 October 1990 . Their claims to that
                           Communities                               effect have, however, been rejected by the Commission .
                          ( Case T-3/96 )
                            ( 96/C 64/47 )
                                                                     The applicants maintain that the rejection infringes
                                                                     Articles 63 and 65a of the Staff Regulations . Under those
                                                                     provisions, the weighting for each Member State is to be
                (Language of the case: French)                       fixed in relation to the cost of living in its capital; Berlin
                                                                     became the capital of Germany on 3 October 1990 . They
                                                                     argue that the Commission was not entitled to use a
An action against the Commission of the European                     Regulation which failed to provide for retrospective
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    calculation of the weighting at the Berlin level as from
Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 1996              1 October 1990, and is obliged to recalculate the coefficient
by Roland Haas, Hans-Werner Schmidt, Siegfried                       affecting the portions of salary transferred as from
Schweikle, Albert Veith and Horst Wohlfeil , resident in             3 October 1990 and to pay them the difference .
Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1                They also argue that the Commission has disregarded the
Rue Glesener.                                                        effects of the judgments in Cases T-64/92 and T-536/93 , in


title: Case T-43/09: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM — Gelkaps (Ayanda) (Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM — Gelkaps (Ayanda)
   (Case T-43/09) (1)

   (Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 141/90
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: La Cachuera, SA (Misiones, Argentina) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gelkaps GmbH (Pritzwalk, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2008 (Case RE 87/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between La Cachuera, SA and Gelkaps GmbH

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders La Cachuera, SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-46/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent — Technical abilities of economic operators — Direct effect — Means of evidence — Hierarchical relationship between the private purchaser’s certification and the tenderer’s unilateral declaration — Principle of proportionality — Prohibition on introducing substantive changes to the means of evidence provided for)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal
   (Case C-46/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent - Technical abilities of economic operators - Direct effect - Means of evidence - Hierarchical relationship between the private purchaser’s certification and the tenderer’s unilateral declaration - Principle of proportionality - Prohibition on introducing substantive changes to the means of evidence provided for))
   (2016/C 335/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA

      Defendant: AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal

      Intervener: Índice — ICT & Management Lda

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second indent of Article 48(2)(a)(ii) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, even if not transposed into national law, it satisfies the conditions for conferring on individuals rights that they may assert against a contracting authority before national courts, provided that that authority is a public entity or has been given responsibility, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public-interest service under the control of the State and which has, for that purpose, special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals.

               2.

               The second indent of Article 48(2)(a)(ii) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of rules laid down by a contracting authority, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which do not allow an economic operator to provide evidence of his technical abilities by a unilateral declaration, unless he proves that it is impossible or very difficult to obtain a certification from the private purchaser.

               3.

               The second indent of Article 48(2)(a)(ii) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of rules laid down by a contracting authority, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, on pain of exclusion of the tenderer’s application, require the private purchaser’s certification to contain authentication of the signature by a notary, lawyer or other competent entity.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case T-561/10: Action brought on 8 December 2010 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/17

         Action brought on 8 December 2010 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)
   (Case T-561/10)
   2011/C 38/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 September 2010 in case R 1027/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DIRECT DRIVE’ for goods in classes 7 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 8797052

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account prior Community trade marks and national registrations as well as a national application.


title: Case C-88/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/19

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-88/05)
   (2005/C 93/36)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 (1) establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, or at least by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to comply with its obligations under the directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 5 February 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 208 of 5.8.2002, p. 10.


4.3.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 63/21
Ireland has not informed the Commission of any measures                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/98 (1)
taken in order to comply with the abovementioned provisions,
and the Commission is in possession of no other information                                      (2000/C 63/40)
enabling it to conclude that Ireland has taken the necessary
steps. Therefore, the Commission is compelled to assume that             By order of 30 November 1999 the President of the Court of
Ireland has not yet taken such measures and that it has thus             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Protocol 28 to       from the register of Case-235/98 (reference for a preliminary
the EEA Agreement, taken in conjunction with Article 300(7)              ruling from l’Areios Pagos): Panagis Neofytos Pythagoras Pafitis
EC.                                                                      and Others v Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados and Others.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-122/97 (1)
                           (2000/C 63/39)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-93/99 (1)
By order of 18 October 1999 the President of the Court of                                        (2000/C 63/41)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-122/97: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      By order of 6 December 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case-93/99: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.                                               Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-446/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2010 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission (Interim measures — Programme Life — Reimbursement of a part of the amounts paid — Recovery order — Debit note — Application for suspension of enforcement — Financial loss — Exceptional circumstances — Lack of urgency)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2010 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission
   (Case T-446/09 R)
   (Interim measures - Programme Life - Reimbursement of a part of the amounts paid - Recovery order - Debit note - Application for suspension of enforcement - Financial loss - Exceptional circumstances - Lack of urgency)
   2010/C 51/64
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra (Coimbra, Portugal) (represented by: L. Pais do Amaral, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and J-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decisions contained, respectively, in Commission letter D (2009) 224268 of 9 September 2009, concerning a recovery order, and Commission debit note No 3230909105 of 11 September 2009 for an amount of EUR 327 500,35.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 March 2003 in Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — No need to give a decision — Action for damages — Admissibility — Plea of inadmissibility joined to the application on the substance)

text:
19.7.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 171/25
performance for 2001 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,                                        of 8 April 2003
for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 20 May 2003 in
which it:
                                                                            in Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co.
                                                                                KG v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            (Action for annulment — Action now devoid of purpose —
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               No need to give a decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/41)
( 1) OJ C 202, 24. 8. 2002.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-91/02: Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                            established in Wismar (Germany), represented by D. Reich,
                                                                            lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for the annulment
                                                                            of Commission Decision 2002/468/EC, of 15 January 2002
                          of 3 April 2003                                   on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic
                                                                            Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Wismar, Mecklenburg-Western
                                                                            Pomerania (OJ 2002 L 165, p. 15) — the Court of First
in Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission                       Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
               of the European Communities ( 1)                             of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A. W. H. Meij and
                                                                            M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 April
                                                                            2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
       (Official — Action for damages — Inadmissible)
                                                                            1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present action.
                          (2003/C 171/40)
                                                                            2.    The Commission shall pay the costs, including those relating to
                                                                                the procedure for interim relief.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ 156 of 29.6.02.
In Case T-18/02, Anita Jannice Österholm, residing in Stockh-
olm, represented by J. R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Devolvé,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application for compen-
sation for the material and non-material damage caused, inter                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
alia, by the length of time taken to process a claim submitted
by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second                                               of 27 March 2003
Chamber), composed of N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
and W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                            in Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH
3 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
1.    There is no longer any need to give a decision on the action for
      annulment.                                                            (Action for annulment — No need to give a decision —
                                                                            Action for damages — Admissibility — Plea of inadmissi-
2.    The action for damages is dismissed as inadmissible.                          bility joined to the application on the substance)
3.    The Commission shall pay half of the applicant’s costs as well                                   (2003/C 171/42)
      as its own costs. The applicant shall bear the other half of her
      own costs.                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.02.
                                                                            In Case T-163/02: Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel,
                                                                            established in Planneg (Germany), Jepsen Stahl GmbH, estab-
                                                                            lished in Nittendorf (Germany), LNS — Lothar Niemeyer
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/26                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              19.7.2003
Stahlhandel GmbH & Co. KG, established in Essen (Germany),                    repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63,
and Metal Traders Stahlhandel GmbH, established in Düssel-                    p. 23) and a claim for compensation for the damage allegedly
dorf (Germany) represented by K. Friedrich, lawyer, with an                   suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of                  composed of V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, P. Mengozzi
the European Communities (Agents: J. Forman and R. Raith) —                   and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
application, first, for the annulment of Commission Regulation                21 March 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
(EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 imposing provisional
safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products
(OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1) and, second, a claim for damages —                       1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible so far as it concerns
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                            the annulment of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European
B. Vesterdorf, President R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,                             Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 March 2003,                         Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound
the operative part of which is as follows:                                          feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/
                                                                                EEC.
1.     There is no need to give a decision on the claim for annulment.
                                                                              2.    The requests submitted by the defendants that the action, in so
2.     The application for a ruling on the admissibility of the claim               far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered,
       for damages is joined to the application on the substance.                   should be held inadmissible, are reserved for final judgment.
3.     The costs are reserved.                                                3.    Costs are reserved.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.02.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 180.
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 21 March 2003
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-167/02: Établissements Toulorge v European
      Parliament and Council of the European Union ( 1)                                                 of 31 March 2003
(Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons —
Measures of direct and individual concern to them —                           in Case T-226/02: André Hecq v Commission of the
Directive 2002/2/EC — Inadmissibility — Claim for dam-                                            European Communities (1)
                                  ages)
                                                                              (Officials — Action for annulment — Act adversely affect-
                           (2003/C 171/43)                                                     ing an official — Inadmissibility)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-167/02: Établissements Toulorge, established in
Bricquebec (France), represented by D. Waelbroeck and
D. Brinckman, lawyers, against European Parliament (Agents:
C. Pennera and Mme E. Waldherr) and Council of the European
Union (Agents: I. Diez Parra and F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi),
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-                         In Case T-226/02: André Hecq, an official of the Commission
D. Plessing nad M. Lumma) and Commission of the European                      of the European Communities, residing in Mondercange
Communities (Agent: A. Bordes) — application for the annul-                   (Luxembourg), represented by L. Vogel and D. Amatulli,
ment of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and                    lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive                  ties (Agent: M. Currall) — application for the annulment of the
79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and                   Commission decision of 15 June 2001 approving the


title: Case T-593/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/17

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-593/14)
   2014/C 361/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case C-216/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato in sede guirisdizionale, Sezione Quinta, by order of that court of 27 January 2004 in the case of SABA Italia SpA against the Comune di Bolzano and SEAB SpA

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato in sede guirisdizionale, Sezione Quinta, by order of that court of 27 January 2004 in the case of SABA Italia SpA against the Comune di Bolzano and SEAB SpA
   (Case C-216/04)
   (2004/C 190/13)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato in sede guirisdizionale (Council of State sitting as a court) of 27 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 24 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SABA Italia SpA against the Comune di Bolzano and SEAB SpA on the following question:
   ‘Is the direct award, that is to say, in derogation from the procedures for the selection of contractors laid down in Directive 92/50/EEC (1), of the management of public pay car parks to a public limited company the entire capital of which is publicly owned within the meaning of paragraph 6(b) of Article 44 of Law No 1 of the Region of Trentino-Alto Adige of 4 January 1993, as amended by Article 10 of Regional Law No 10 of 23 January 1998, compatible with Community law, in particular with the freedom to provide services, the prohibition of discrimination and the obligation to guarantee equal treatment, transparency and free competition referred to in Articles 12, 45, 46, 49 and 86 of the EC Treaty?’

      (1)  OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 1.


title: Case T-45/11: Order of the General Court of 27 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/83

         Order of the General Court of 27 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-45/11) (1)

   2013/C 225/186
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-691/14: Action brought on 21 September 2014  — Servier SAS and Others v Commission

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/25

         Action brought on 21 September 2014 — Servier SAS and Others v Commission
   (Case T-691/14)
   (2014/C 462/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Servier SAS (Suresnes, France); Servier Laboratories Ltd (Wexham, United Kingdom); and Les Laboratoires Servier SAS (Suresnes) (represented by: I. S. Forrester, QC, J. Killick, Barrister, O. de Juvigny, avocat, and M.-I. F. Utges Manley, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul in whole or in part Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Commission Decision No C (2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [AT.39.612 — Périndopril (Servier)] insofar as they relate to Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited;

               —

               in the alternative, exercise its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce the amount of the fines imposed on Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited under Article 7 of that decision, by a very substantial amount;

               —

               grant Servier S.A.S, Les Laboratoires Servier and Servier Laboratories Limited the benefit of any annulment, in whole or in part, of the Decision in the appeal brought by Biogaran;

               —

               make any Order that the Court deems appropriate;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a procedural defect, insofar as the inquiry was vitiated by a hypothesis-confirmation bias. The applicants claim that, after stating publicly, at the end of the sector inquiry, that the sector concerned was ‘rotten’, the Commission sought, at all costs, to bear out that statement by a decision, even if that meant distorting and rewriting the facts of the present case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, insofar as the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions — whose opinion is mandatory before the taking of any decision, in accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) — was not convened in time, and insofar as only the representatives of three Member States attended the meeting of that committee.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy, the Commission having addressed to the applicants a decision of 919 pages, without taking into account the constraints of time and form that must be respected when lodging an appeal.

               4.

               Fourth to twelfth pleas in law alleging errors of assessment and of law, the Commission having incorrectly characterised the settlement agreements between the applicants, and Niche, Matrix, Teva, Krka and Lupin, as amicable in breach of Article 101 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicants claim in particular that, in order to classify the restriction agreements ‘by object’, the Commission relied on three factors, so broadly defined that they are ineffective, to distinguish legitimate amicable settlements from anti-competitive agreements (existence of a transfer of value inducing the generics manufacturer to compromise effectively any commercial benefit whatsoever, restriction of competition amounting to restriction of the commercial freedom of the generics manufacturer and potential competition between the parties amounting to the absence of obstacles rendering the future entry of the generics manufacturer onto the market impossible).

                           —

                           Furthermore, by distorting the legitimate objective and the context of the agreements (inter alia, by disregarding, despite reality, the existence of serious technical and regulatory difficulties preventing generics manufacturers from entering the market as well as the existence of parallel legal proceedings), the Commission vitiated, with several errors of assessment, its conclusion that the purpose of the agreements was to restrict competition.

                           —

                           Finally, the analysis of the ‘effects’ of the agreements is vitiated by a contradiction of reasoning and by the fact that the Commission did not use a realistic counterfactual scenario. The contested decision is based entirely on an ex-ante analysis of hypothetical effects, virtually reproducing its analysis per object in breach of case-law, so that, it concluded that there were anti-competitive effects despite the absence of any real effect on the market.

               5.

               Thirteenth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, an error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission artificially characterised the agreements between the applicants, and Niche, Matrix, Teva, Krka and Lupin, as containing five separate breaches.

               6.

               Fourteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission wrongly and artificially restricted the relevant market for finished products to the single molecule of perindopril, by excluding the fifteen other enzyme conversion inhibitors available on the market.

               7.

               Fifteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, insofar as the Commission incorrectly concluded that the applicants held a dominant position on the relevant market. The applicants claim that the Commission’s conclusion arises from the artificial restriction of the relevant market to Perindopril only.

               8.

               Sixteenth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission incorrectly classified the applicants as undertakings in a dominant position on the ‘technology’ market.
               The applicants claim that the Commission defined the ‘technology’ market in an insufficiently clear and, in any event, incorrect manner, that only reproduced the market of finished product, and incorrectly found that Servier held a dominant position on that hypothetical market.

               9.

               Seventeenth plea in law alleging an error of assessment and an error of law, insofar as the Commission incorrectly took the view that the applicants abused their dominant position by entering into amicable settlements (in doing so, the Commission simultaneously applied Articles 101 and 102 TFEU to the same facts, contrary to case-law), and by acquiring embryonic technology from a European SME.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-233/15: Action brought on 11 May 2015 — Cofra v OHIM — Armand Thiery (1841)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/40

         Action brought on 11 May 2015 — Cofra v OHIM — Armand Thiery (1841)
   (Case T-233/15)
   (2015/C 213/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois Perret, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘1841’ — Community trade mark No 9 119 553

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2015 in Case R 805/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 40(6) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

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


title: Case T-363/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Koipe v OHIM — Aceites del Sur (La Espoñola) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark La Española — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community figurative marks Carbonell — Rejection of the opposition — Dominant elements — Similarity — Likelihood of confusion — Power to alter decisions)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Koipe v OHIM — Aceites del Sur (La Espoñola)
   (Case T-363/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ‘La Española’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community figurative marks ‘Carbonell’ - Rejection of the opposition - Dominant elements - Similarity - Likelihood of confusion - Power to alter decisions)
   (2007/C 247/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Koipe Corporación SL (San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: M. Fernández de Béthencourt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Aceites del Sur SA (Seville, Spain) (represented by: C.L. Fernández-Palacios and R. Jiménez Díaz, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2004 (R 1109/2000-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Koipe Corporación SL and Aceites del Sur SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Alters the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 May 2004 (Case R 1109/2000-4) so as to hold that the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be upheld.

               2.

               Orders OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-248/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Pakora Pluss SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Act of Accession to the European Union — Customs union — Transitional measures — Goods free from customs duties when entered for free circulation — Goods in transport in the enlarged Community on the date of accession of the Republic of Latvia — Export formalities — Import duties — VAT)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Pakora Pluss SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-248/09) (1)

   (Act of Accession to the European Union - Customs union - Transitional measures - Goods free from customs duties when entered for free circulation - Goods in transport in the enlarged Community on the date of accession of the Republic of Latvia - Export formalities - Import duties - VAT)
   2010/C 246/15
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pakora Pluss SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 4(10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), of Article 448 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union, Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1 — Import of a motor vehicle by sea — Release for free circulation free of customs duties and other customs measures applicable to goods being, at the date of accession, transported within the enlarged Community after export formalities have been completed

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ascertain whether the export formalities referred to therein have been completed, it is irrelevant that the actions provided for in Article 448 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2787/2000 of 15 December 2000, were performed, even where a cargo manifest has been drawn up.

               2.

               Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, and Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 2787/2000, are applicable in the new Member States as from 1 May 2004, but the procedure provided for in Annex IV, Chapter 5, paragraph 1 of the Act of Accession cannot be relied on where the export formalities set out therein have not been completed with respect to goods in transport in the enlarged Community at the date of accession of those new Member States of the European Union.

               3.

               Article 4(10) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 82/97 must be interpreted as meaning that import duties do not include the value added tax to be levied on the importation of goods.

               4.

               When goods are imported, the obligation to pay the value added tax is imposed on the person or persons designated or accepted as being liable by the Member State into which the goods are imported.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-92/03: Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Luis Escobar Guerrero against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/42              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Action brought on 5 March 2003 by Luis Escobar Guer-                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
rero against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                      —     annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
                                                                               applicant’s candidacy for the post of Grade A 2 as
                         (Case T-92/03)                                        Director of DG INFSO/A: ‘Information Services: policy
                                                                               and regulation’;
                        (2003/C 112/78)                                  —     annul the decision of the Commission of 29 March 2002;
                  (Language of the case: French)                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 March 2003 by Luis Escobar                     The applicant, an official of the Commission, objects to the
Guerrero, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Albert                  Commission’s decision to reject his candidacy for the post of
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Étienne Marchal and Sébastien Orlan-            Grade A 2 as Director of DG INFSO/A: ‘Information Services:
di, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                  policy and regulation’.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to include the                 —     breach of the obligation to provides reasons;
      applicant’s name on the list of officials promoted to
      Grade A5 for promotions round 2002, a decision which               —     infringement of Article 4, Article 7, the third paragraph
      results from the publication in ‘Informations administrat-               of Article 27, Article 26(1)(a) and Article 45 of the Staff
      ives’ No 40-2002 of 17 May 2002;                                         Regulations;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-
                                                                               discrimination;
                                                                         —     manifest error of assessment;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     infringement of the rules of conduct adopted by the
                                                                               Commission for filling of posts at grades A 1 and A 2.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges breach of
the obligation to state reasons. He also alleges breach of
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal        Furthermore, he claims that the professional requirements for
treatment, of the principle that an official is entitled to              the post, as set down in the notice of vacancy, are unlawful
reasonable career prospects and of the principles of proper              inasmuch as they are not directed at securing the services of
administration and sound management.                                     officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and
                                                                         integrity in relation to the duties to be performed.
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Spyros Konidaris
                                                                         Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Ferriere Nord S.p.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-93/03)                                                            (Case T-94/03)
                        (2003/C 112/79)                                                           (2003/C 112/80)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 2003 by Spyros Konidaris,                European Communities on 10 March 2003 by Ferriere Nord
residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Albert Coolen,            S.p.A., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Gabriele Donà and
Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers.                            Elena Perricone, lawyers.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2003 in Case T-308/01: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure — Genuine use of earlier mark — Scope of the examination conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of the evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition Division)

text:
C 304/26               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       13.12.2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 October 2003
                     of 23 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-308/01: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     (Officials — Vacancy notice — Assessment of the candi-
                            (OHIM) (1)                                     dates’ merits — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of
                                                                                power)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/47)
(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and
Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure —
Genuine use of earlier mark — Scope of the examination                                         (Language of the case: French)
conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of the
evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition
                             Division)                                     In Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme, an official of the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by É. Boi-
                                                                           gelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                         (2003/C 304/46)                                   against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           J. Currall, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Waelbroeck) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 July
                                                                           2001 rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of head
                   (Language of the case: English)                         of unit ‘Legal affairs and control of enforcement of Community
                                                                           provisions’ of the ‘General Matters’ Directorate of the Taxation
                                                                           and Customs Union Directorate General — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
In Case T-308/01, Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf                   on 14 October 2003, in which it:
(Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation              1.    Dismisses the action;
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agent: O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings                 2.    Order each party to bear its own costs.
before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) being: LHS (UK) Ltd, established in
Cheadle Hulme (United Kingdom): Appeal against the decision                (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September
2001 (Case R-738/2000-3) concerning opposition proceed-
ings between Henkel KGaA and LHS (UK) Ltd, the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 September 2003, in which it:
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-241/02: Daniel Callebaut v Commission of the
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                European Communities (1)
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-738/2000-3);
                                                                           (Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Pro-
                                                                                motion — Comparative examination of merits)
2.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.                                                    (2003/C 304/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                           In Case T-241/02: Daniel Callbaut, an official of the European
                                                                           Communities, residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg),
                                                                           represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers,


title: Case T-137/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2013 — FunFactory v OHIM (Vibrator) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional trade mark — Vibrator — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — The first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — The second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2013 — FunFactory v OHIM (Vibrator)
   (Case T-137/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Vibrator - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - The first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - The second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 63/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: FunFactory GmbH (Brême, Germany) (represented by: K.-D. Franzen, laywer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 1436/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign representing a vibrator.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders FunFactory GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6. 2012.


title: Case C-271/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014  — Rousse Industry v European Commission (Appeal  — State aid  — Aid granted by the Republic of Bulgaria in the form of debt write-off  — Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery  — Concept of ‘new aid’   — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 March 2014 — Rousse Industry v European Commission
   (Case C-271/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Republic of Bulgaria in the form of debt write-off - Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Duty to state reasons))
   2014/C 142/09
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Rousse Industry (represented by: A Angelov and S Panov, advokati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and D. Stefanov, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of 20 March 2013 in Case T-489/11 Rousse Industry v Commission, by which the General Court (Fourth Chamber) dismissed the action brought by Rousse Industry for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 2012/706/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid SA.28903 (C 12/2010) (ex N 389/2009) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry (OJ 2012 L 320, p. 27) — State aid in the form of debt write-off — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Infringement of procedural rules adversely affecting the rights of the applicant — Infringement of EU law by the General Court.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Rousse Industry AD to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Joined Cases T-34/13 and T-35/13: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/55

         Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-34/13 and T-35/13) (1)

   (2017/C 283/86)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case T-42/06: Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2010 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision not to defend his privileges and immunities — Action for annulment — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Conduct alleged against the Parliament — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/29

         Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2010 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-42/06) (1)

   (Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision not to defend his privileges and immunities - Action for annulment - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Conduct alleged against the Parliament - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Causal link)
   2010/C 134/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: W. de Saint Just and G. Dubois, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, C. Karamarcos and A. Padowska and subsequently by H. Krück, D. Moore and A. Padowska, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, first, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 December 2005 not to defend the immunity and privileges of Mr Bruno Gollnisch and, second, compensation for the damage suffered by Mr Gollnisch as a result of that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rules that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment;

               2.

               Dismisses the claim for damages;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Bruno Gollnisch, including those relating to the application for interim measures;

               4.

               Orders Mr Bruno Gollnisch to bear one third of his costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-50/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Citizenship of the Union — Freedom of movement for nationals of the Member States — Directive 64/221/EEC — Public policy — National legislation concerning expulsion — Criminal conviction — Expulsion)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-50/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Citizenship of the Union - Freedom of movement for nationals of the Member States - Directive 64/221/EEC - Public policy - National legislation concerning expulsion - Criminal conviction - Expulsion)
   (2007/C 170/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and M. de Grave, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117) — National legislation applying without distinction to all foreign nationals and thus failing to take account of the special position of citizens of the European Union — Automatic connection between a criminal conviction and a measure a ordering expulsion.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not applying to citizens of the Union Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, but by applying to them general legislation relating to foreign nationals which makes it possible to establish a systematic and automatic connection between a criminal conviction and a measure ordering expulsion, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Joined Cases T-528/10, T-69/11 and T-77/11: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO and Truvo)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/21

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO and Truvo)
   (Joined Cases T-528/10, T-69/11 and T-77/11) (1)

   2012/C 39/40
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, OJ C 89, 19.3.2011 and OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


15.6.2002             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 144/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/00 (1)             from the register of Case C-462/00: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                       (2002/C 144/59)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/63)
                                                                  By order of 9 January 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-235/01: Commission of the
       Removal from the register of Case C-408/00 (1)             European Communities v Italian Republic.
                       (2002/C 144/60)                            (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 22 February 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-408/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      Removal from the register of Case C-242/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/64)
                                                                  By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-242/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/00 (1)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                       (2002/C 144/61)
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and
                                                                                C-270/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/65)
                                                                  By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01
                                                                  (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e
       Removal from the register of Case C-462/00 (1)
                                                                  Penale di L’Aquila): Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case
                                                                  C-269/01) and Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case
                       (2002/C 144/62)                            C-270/01).
                                                                  (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case T-336/02: Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christensen against Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.1.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/23
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             The applicants further request, in the alternative, the appli-
                                                                        cation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/
—     annul the decision of the Commission REM 14/01 of                 87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt (2), which precludes
      28 June 2002, notified on 2 September 2002, finding no            payment of customs duty in respect of those goods which
      ground for remission of import duties in respect of               have been confiscated.
      imported goods valued at EUR 256 983,63;
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1.
—     in the alternative, and subject to all manner of reser-           (2 ) OJ 1987 L 201, p. 15.
      vations, declare none the less, pursuant to Article 8(19)(b)
      of Regulation EEC No 2144/87, that in the present case a
      remission of import duties is due to the applicants in
      respect of the 8 010 kilograms confiscated from all the
      accused in the criminal proceedings;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christen-
                                                                           sen against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-336/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/46)
The applicants in the present case are contesting the defend-
ant’s decision finding that there is no ground for the remission
of import duties amounting to EUR 256 983 requested by the                                  (Language of the case: French)
Italian Republic on 4 June 2001 (DOSSIER REM 14/01,
notified in EEC C(2002) 2384 final).
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicants were asked to pay customs duty on two                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
consignments of cigarettes amounting to more than LIT                   European Communities on 6 November 2002 by Susan
2.5 billion, as they then were, dating from as far back as 1992.        Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Georges
They challenged the order for payment before the Italian                Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.
courts and sought a remission from the Commission, which
refused it.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present application has been brought under Article 13 of            —     annul the decision of the Selection Board for Competition
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the                     COM/R/A/2000 of 3 December 2001 refusing to include
repayment or remission of import or export duties (1). The                    the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that she
applicants claim that they could not be required to pay                       failed to obtain, during the oral tests, the minimum
customs duty in that there are in the present case ‘special                   number of points to be included and, in so far as
situations’ such as to preclude such a requirement of payment,                necessary, the decision of the authority empowered to
since they had placed legitimate reliance on commercial and                   conclude contracts of employment (AECE) of 23 July
transport documents submitted to them when the goods were                     2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified on
declared at customs which gave to understand that the goods                   30 July 2002;
were packaging.
                                                                        —     annul all the operations and acts relating to the compe-
                                                                              tition subsequent to the irregularities contained in the
The special situation giving entitlement to remission arises                  decision of 3 December 2001 and, in particular, the
from the fact that the customs declarant has no way of being                  reserve list and the appointment decisions taken on the
able to check the content of the lorry crossing the border and                basis of that list;
furthermore that the documents appeared to be in order, while
the consignment cleared customs under the ‘conformity’
procedure by the customs authority.                                     —     order the defendant, in any event, to adopt any measure
                                                                              necessary to ensure that the applicant’s rights are restored;
Furthermore, in the present case, there was no ‘negligence’ or          —     otherwise, order the defendant to pay damages assessed
‘deception’, as required under Article 13, inasmuch as the                    at EUR 22 088,34, subject to increase;
applicants properly declared the goods, in accordance with the
commercial and transport documents.                                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
selection board in competition COM/R/A/2000 refusing to
include her name on the reserve list.                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant relies on four pleas             The present action seeks the annulment of the decision by
in law. First, she alleges breach of the principle of non-               which the applicant was notified of her non-admission to the
discrimination, breach of essential procedural requirements,             tests in competition COM/A/10/01 because she was beyond
infringement of the rules governing the organisation of tests            the age-limit provided for in the notice of competition.
and infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff
Regulations. In the applicant’s view, the selection board was
not composed of a stable number of members and did not                   The pleas in law and main arguments have previously been
carry out its work impartially.                                          put forward in T-219/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission ( 1).
The applicant in her second plea in law alleges infringement
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 C 233, p. 30.
of the competition notice.
Third, she alleges breach of the interest of the service,
infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment
of Other Servants of the European Communities and manifest
error of assessment.
Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of equal           Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI
treatment between men and women, breach of the equal                     association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga
opportunity policy, breach of positive actions and breach of                        against Council of the European Union
the principle according to which the administration is bound
by the acts which it adopts.
                                                                                (Case T-338/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz
Herrera against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-337/02)                                  Communities on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association,
                                                                         Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga, established in
                          (2003/C 7/47)                                  Baiona (France) and in Donostia (Spain), Araitz Zubimendi
                                                                         Izaga, residing in Hernani (Spain), and Aritza Galarraga,
                                                                         residing in Senpere (France), represented by Didier Rouget,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        avocat.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz                    —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
Herrera, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-                    EUR 1 000 000 to the SEGI association and
Gallardo and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.                                   EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants, Araitz
                                                                               Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
                                                                               rate of 4,5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission refusing Olga                       judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
      Lutz’s application to take part in COM/A/10/01; and                      payment is effected;


title: Case T-91/13: Action brought on 14 February 2013 — LG Electronics v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/34

         Action brought on 14 February 2013 — LG Electronics v Commission
   (Case T-91/13)
   2013/C 108/83
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Korea) (represented by: G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.1(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the European Commission’s decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 in Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes, insofar as they concern the applicant; and/or

               —

               Reduce the fines imposed on the applicant in Articles 2.1(d) and (e) and Articles 2.2(d) and (e) of the contested decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.
   Plea pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, seeking the annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision insofar as they concern the applicant:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s rights of defence (breach of an essential procedural requirement), in that LG Philips Displays (‘LPD’) was kept outside the proceedings as a defendant.
               Pleas seeking the (partial) annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and a corresponding reduction of applicant’s fines pursuant to Article 261 TFEU:

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), violation of the principle of personal liability, and manifest error of assessment, in that the applicant is held liable for infringements committed by LPD.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in that the contested decision holds the applicant liable for any conduct prior to 1 July 2001.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, violation of Article 296 TFEU, and violation of the principle of equal treatment, in that the contested decision includes Direct EEA Sales Through Transformed Products (“TPDS”) in calculating the fine imposed on the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, violation of the principle of personal liability, manifest error of assessment, violation of the applicant's rights of defence, in that the contested decision holds the applicant liable for the fine based on TPDS made by Philips.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 296 TFEU, manifest error of assessment and violation of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, in that the contested decision (i) fails to state sufficient reasons for not including TPDS for Samsung, and/or (ii) arbitrarily includes or excludes TPDS causing unequal treatment between the applicant and Samsung.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging violation of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the principles of equal treatment and sound administration, in that (i) the contested decision is not addressed to LPD and the LPD subsidiaries that participated in the infringements while another joint venture was addressed alongside its parents, and (ii) in that other parent companies in the same situation as the applicant were not addressed in the contested decision.
               Plea based on the Court's unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003:

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, requesting that the Court exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to reduce the applicant's fine as it is excessive and disproportionate.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)


title: Case C-620/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 December 2011 — Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad, S.L. v Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 December 2011 — Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad, S.L. v Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State
   (Case C-620/11)
   2012/C 39/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad, S.L.

      Other parties: Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

      Question referred

   May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.