C 299/40               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.9.98
coal mining industry for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996;                       Removal from the register of Case T-49/98 (1)
the second and third Decisions concern the years 1997                                           (98/C 299/72)
and 1998. All of the contested Decisions contain operating
aids under Article 3 of the Code (1), closure aids under                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 4 of the Code as well as aids to cover exceptional
charges under Article 5 of the Code.                                   By order of 15 July 1998 the President of the Second
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by these                  Case T-49/98 ALZ NV v. Commission of the European
Decisions, as the British coal industry has over the last 10           Communities.
years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation
and as the company was also trying to find a market for                (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
its coal overseas, in particular in Germany and Spain.
The pleas in law and main arguments are, with the
exception of an alleged infringement of the principle of
good administration, identical to those raised in Case                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-56/98 and
T-110/98 (2).                                                                                T-56/98 R (1)
                                                                                (98/C 299/73)
(1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
    1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal                      (Language of the case: English)
    industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
(2) See page 38 of this Official Journal.                              By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                       Cases T-56/98 and T-56/98 R VTech Electronics (UK) plc
                                                                       v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
    Partial removal from the register of Case T-185/96 (1)
                          (98/C 299/71)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-60/98 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 299/74)
By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                (Language of the case: French)
Communities has ordered the removal of the name of the
applicant Max Labat Automobiles 17 from the list of                    By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Second
names of the applicants in Case T-185/96 Max Labat                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso v.                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                Case T-60/98 Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation,
                                                                       composed of the following members: Danagro Adviser A/
                                                                       S, Plunkett Foundation and Irish Agri-Food Development
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                                Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.


title: Case C-256/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Telecom Italia SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Telecom Italia SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-256/12)
   2012/C 217/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case T-444/13 P: Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 10 October 2014  — EMA v BU (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Non-renewal decision — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Article 8, first subparagraph of the CEOS — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/39

         Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 10 October 2014 — EMA v BU
   (Case T-444/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Non-renewal decision - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - Article 8, first subparagraph of the CEOS - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff))
   2014/C 421/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A Duron, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: BU (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third chamber) of 26 June 2013, BU v EMA (F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12, ECR SC, EU:F:2013:93) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BU in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case F-46/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — V v Parliament (Staff case — Contract staff — Conditions of engagement — Whether physically fit — Pre-recruitment medical examination. — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Medical confidentiality — Transfer of medical data between institutions — Right to respect for private life)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — V v Parliament
   (Case F-46/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Contract staff - Conditions of engagement - Whether physically fit - Pre-recruitment medical examination. - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Medical confidentiality - Transfer of medical data between institutions - Right to respect for private life)
   2011/C 282/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by M. V. Pérez Asinari and H. Kranenborg, agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the medical opinion of physical unfitness of 18 December 2008 and, second, annulment of the decision to withdraw the offer of employment previously made to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of 19 December 2008 whereby the European Parliament withdrew the offer of employment made to V;

               2.

               orders the European Parliament to pay V the sum of EUR 25 000;

               3.

               dismisses the action for the remainder;

               4.

               orders the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its own costs;

               5.

               orders the European Data Protection Supervisor, as intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11 of 16.01.10, p. 40.


C 352/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-42/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-323/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/50)                                                     (1999/C 352/52)
By order of 7 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the             By order of 14 September 1999 the President of the Court of
register of Case-42/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johann Seemeier and Jörg            from the register of Case C-323/98 (reference for a preliminary
Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salz-            ruling from Tribunale civile e penale, Verona): Idropi SpA v
burg and Jörg Schreiber v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für           MTMD — Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA.
Kärnten.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-438/97 (1)
                         (1999/C 352/51)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-131/99 (1)
By order of 8 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of                             (1999/C 352/53)
the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-438/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Holger Warnecke e.a. v                  By order of 19 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat de la province de Salzburg.             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-131/99: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-163/05 (1)

   (2006/C 60/72)

      (Language of the case: Portuguese)

   By order of 10 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-163/05: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 132 of 28.05.2005.


title: Case T-360/04: Action brought on 2 September 2004 by FG Marine S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/59

         Action brought on 2 September 2004 by FG Marine S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-360/04)
   (2004/C 262/108)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 September 2004 by FG Marine S.A., established in Roissy (France), represented by Marie-Aline Michel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Commission, which incurred non-contractual liability by adopting Decision 2000/513/EC of 8 September 1999 on aid granted by France to Stardust Marine (OJ 1999 L 206, p. 6), to compensate the applicant and to find that the compensation to which it is legitimately entitled may not be lower than FF 200 000 000 (EUR 30 489 803.44).

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant company in the present case, a majority partner in Stardust Marine, submits that the Community incurred non-contractual liability arising from the losses it claims to have suffered as a result of the Commission's decision of 8 September 1999, which declared incompatible with the common market the capital increases, advances on current account and recapitalisations effected within Stardust Marine by Consortium de Réalisation (CDR) as part of Crédit Lyonnais' restructuring plans, and ordered recovery thereof.
   The recovery order contained in the aforementioned decision is the reason for Stardust Marine's having tabled its balance sheet, which deprived the applicant of the benefits of the restructuring it effected.
   FG Marine states in support of its contentions that the decision contested in the present case disregarded the private investor criterion and was annulled by the Court in its judgment of 16 May 2002 in Case C-482/99 French Republic v Commission. (1) In addition, in adopting the decision, the Commission did not place itself in the context as it existed at the time and did not view Crédit Lyonnais and its subsidiaries as shareholders in Stardust Marine, but rather as its bankers. Lastly, the decision at issue here disregarded completely any prospects for recovery which Stardust Marine might have.

      (1)  [2002] ECR I-4397.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2002 in Case C-255/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (Internal taxes contrary to Community law — Recovery of sums paid but not due — National legislation retroactively reducing time-limits for bringing proceedings — Compatibility with the principle of effectiveness)

text:
C 274/10                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.11.2002
3.    If it is demonstrated that there is in fact a risk to public health    Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972
      arising from the coexistence of two versions of the same               and Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on
      medicinal product on the market in a Member State such a risk          the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables are to
      may justify restrictions on the importation of the old version of      be interpreted as meaning that compliance with the provisions on
      the medicinal product in consequence of the withdrawal of the          quality standards applicable to fruit or vegetables must be capable of
      marketing authorisation of reference by the holder thereof in          enforcement by means of civil proceedings instituted by a trader
      relation to that market.                                               against a competitor.
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 17 September 2002                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-253/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 24 September 2002
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA, Superior Fruiticola SA v Frumar
            Ltd, Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd ( 1)
                                                                             in Case C-255/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze ( 1)
(Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Quality
standards for varieties of table grapes — Legal obligations
of operators marketing table grapes within the Community
— Right of an operator to seek enforcement of those                          (Internal taxes contrary to Community law — Recovery of
                  obligations in civil proceedings)                          sums paid but not due — National legislation retroactively
                                                                             reducing time-limits for bringing proceedings — Compati-
                                                                                bility with the principle of effectiveness)
                           (2002/C 274/15)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/16)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-253/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                                           in the European Court Reports)
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA, Superior
Fruiticola SA and Frumar Ltd, Redbridge Produce Marketing
Ltd, on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of
the Council of 18 May 1972 and Council Regulation (EC)                       In Case C-255/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation                     EC by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special                   in the proceedings pending before that court between Grundig
Edition 1972 (II), p. 437, and OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1 respectively),            Italiana SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, on the interpretation
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  of the principles of Community law relating to the recovery of
P. Jann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, (Presidents               sums paid but not due, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                      of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                     J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-                      Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruíz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 274/11
Community law precludes the retroactive application of a time-limit           A situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the
that is shorter and, as the case may be, more restrictive for the             differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex
claimant than the period for initiating proceedings that was previously       performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to
applicable to claims for the recovery of national taxes contrary to           a single source, does not come within the scope of Article 141(1) EC.
Community law where no adequate transitional period is provided
during which claims relating to sums paid before the entry into force
of the legislation introducing the new time-limit may still be brought        (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
within the old period. Where a limitation period of five years is
replaced with a time-limit of three years, a transitional period of 90
days must be regarded as insufficient and six months must be
regarded as the minimum period required to ensure that the exercise
of rights of recovery is not rendered excessively difficult.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
                                                                              in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine
                                                                              Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto
                                                                                Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special
                                                                                jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)
                       of 17 September 2002                                                               (2002/C 274/18)
in Case C-320/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
A.G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd,
Commercial Catering Group, Mitie Secure Services Ltd (1)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct
effect — Comparison of the work performed for different
                               employers)                                     In Case C-334/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                              of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
                                                                              the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                              Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
                           (2002/C 274/17)
                                                                              by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA and Heinrich
                     (Language of the case: English)                          Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS), on the interpret-
                                                                              ation of Article 5(1) and (3) of the abovementioned Convention
                                                                              of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
                                                                              the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                                                                              Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
In Case C-320/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                         — amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 Octo-
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 ber 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982
before that court between A. G. Lawrence and Others and                       L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group, Mitie                      Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Secure Services Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 141(1) EC,              Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court, composed of:
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr                  (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                     Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, J. N. Cunha
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,                   Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges;
Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal               L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     given a judgment on 17 September 2002, in which it has
17 September 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     ruled:


title: Case C-46/00: Action brought on 14 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 102/15
2. Dismiss the action for annulment of Regulation 1312/96              Pleas in law and main arguments
     lodged by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
     C.H. Boehringer Sohn in T-152/96 as unfounded;
                                                                       The existing waste management plans currently notified to the
3. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  Commission under Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC do not
     Boehringer Sohn to pay the costs of this appeal;                  appear to cover the whole territory of the United Kingdom.
                                                                       From the information provided the Commission has had to
4. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  conclude that the United Kingdom has not notified sufficient
     Boehringer Sohn to bear the costs of the action for               waste plans to cover the whole territory of the United
     annulment in Case T-152/96.                                       Kingdom.
                                                                       As regards Directive 91/689/EEC, an examination of Annex I
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of the Reasoned Opinion shows that 21 of the notified plans
                                                                       do not contain the requisite information relating to hazardous
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance erred          waste. By virtue of Article 6 of this directive, the United
in law in finding that the Commission had exceeded its powers          Kingdom authorities are required to draw up plans for
by restricting the validity of the maximum residue limits              the management of hazardous waste. From the information
(MRLs) established in Regulation 1312/96.                              provided, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil this obli-
                                                                       gation.
The Commission also submits that the reasoning used to
support that conclusion is contradictory, incomplete and               Furthermore, as regards Directive 94/62/EC, only one plan
wrong.                                                                 appears to include a chapter on packaging waste. By virtue of
                                                                       Article 14 of this directive, the United Kingdom authorities are
                                                                       required to include a specific chapter on the management of
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 15.                                     packaging and packaging waste in an Article 7 waste plan.
(2) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996, p. 32.                                     From the information provided, the United Kingdom has failed
                                                                       to fulfil this obligation.
                                                                       (1) Of the Council of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975,
                                                                           p. 39).
                                                                       (2) Of the Council of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
                                                                           L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20).
Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of                 (3) Of the European Parliament and Council of 20 December 1994
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                        on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994,
                                                                           p. 10).
                         (Case C-35/00)
                        (2000/C 102/25)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                  Action brought on 14 February 2000 by the Commission
Adviser, and Ms Lena Ström, Legal Adviser, acting as agents,                   of the European Communities against Ireland
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
                                                                                (Case C-46/00)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/26)
— declare that, by failing to draw up waste-management
     plans in conformity with all the requirements of Directives       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC (3) concern-          Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2000 by
     ing waste and/or inform the Commission thereof, the               the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     United Kingdom Government has failed to fulfil its obli-          by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, member
     gations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 respectively of these          of the Legal Service acting as agents, with an address for service
     Directives,                                                       at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the
                                                                       Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                           Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.4.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case C-399/95 (1)
1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations                                       (2000/C 102/29)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/21/EC of 8 April 1998 (1)                    By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
     amending Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate the           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
     free movement of doctors and the mutual recoginition of              from the register of Case C-399/95: Federal Republic of
     their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal            Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
     qualifications, or by failing to adopt the measures necessary
     to comply with it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under that Directive                                                 (1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.
2) order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-195/96 (1)
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation                                     (2000/C 102/30)
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December            By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of            from the register of Case C-195/96: Federal Republic of
the Commission.                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
(1) OJ L 119 of 22.4.1998, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-333/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-255/92 P (1)                                           (2000/C 102/31)
                         (2000/C 102/27)                                  By order of 17 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of                 from the register of Case C-333/98 (reference for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               ruling from the Commissione dei v i Provvedimenti dell’Ufficio
from the register of Case C-255/92 P: BASF AG v Commission                Italiano Brevetti e Marchi): Merck & Co Inc. v Ufficio Italiano
of the European Communities.                                              Brevetti e Marchi.
(1) OJ C 187 of 24.7.1992.                                                (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-291/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-129/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/32)
                         (2000/C 102/28)
                                                                          By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 10 December 1999 the President of the Court of                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-291/99 (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-129/99: Federal Republic of                   ruling from the Tribunale di Trieste, Prima Sezione Civile):
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                         Crossbow Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 314, 30.10.1999.


title: Case F-118/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 February 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Decision by the appointing authority to retire an official and to grant an invalidity allowance — Decision not addressing the occupational origin of the disease which justified retirement — Obligation on the appointing authority to recognise the occupational origin of the disease — Article 78, fifth paragraph, of the Staff Regulations — Need to convene a new invalidity committee — Relevance of an earlier decision adopted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 February 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-118/11) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Decision by the appointing authority to retire an official and to grant an invalidity allowance - Decision not addressing the occupational origin of the disease which justified retirement - Obligation on the appointing authority to recognise the occupational origin of the disease - Article 78, fifth paragraph, of the Staff Regulations - Need to convene a new invalidity committee - Relevance of an earlier decision adopted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 102/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing to adopt a decision concerning the occupational origin of the disease suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012. p. 70.


title: Case C-440/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 October 2008 — F. Gielen, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 October 2008 — F. Gielen, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-440/08)
   (2008/C 327/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F. Gielen

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Is Article 43 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of a provision in a Member State's tax legislation to profits which a national of another Member State (foreign taxable person) has derived from a part of his undertaking operated in the first Member State, if that provision, when interpreted in a particular way, indeed makes a distinction between domestic and foreign taxable persons which — viewed in isolation — is contrary to Article 43 EC, but the foreign taxable person concerned has had an opportunity to opt for treatment as a domestic taxable person and has not done so for reasons of his own?


title: Case C-374/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 May 2015 in Case T-363/12 Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC natural beauty)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/14

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 May 2015 in Case T-363/12 Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC natural beauty)
   (Case C-374/15 P)
   (2016/C 145/17)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (represented by: D. Rzążewska)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Clinique Laboratories, LLC
   By order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 January 1996 in Case T-23/95: Efthimia Bitha and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Cover against the risk of accident and of occupational disease for officials of the Community - Payment of the benefits provided for in Article 73 (2) of the Staff Regulations - Accidental death - Underwater diving)

text:
 3 . 2 . 96            EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 31 / 19
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             1 . pending delivery of the final order in the procedure
                       of 9 January 1996                                   for interim measures, the recruitment procedure
                                                                           commenced by competition CdR A/03/95 is suspended,
 in Case T-23/95 : Efthimia Bitha and Others v. Commission
                                                                           including the assessment of the tests held to date, the
               of the European Communities ( l )                           holding ofany further tests, the drawing-up of the list of
 (Cover against the risk of accident and of occupational                   suitable candidates and any appointments which may be
 disease for officials of the Community — Payment of the                   made on the basis of that list;
 benefits provided for in Article 73 (2) of the Staff
   Regulations — Accidental death — Underwater diving)                2 . the costs are reserved.
                           ( 96/C 31 /44 )
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-23/95 : Efthimia Bitha, Vasiliki Bitha and
Georgios Bitha, the persons entitled under Krinio Bitha, a
                                                                      Action brought on 7 November 1995 by European Fertilizer
former official of the Commission of the European
                                                                     Manufacturers Association against Council of the European
Communities, residing in Thessaloniki ( Greece ),                                                  Union
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                                         ( Case T-2 10/95 )
Fiduciaire Myson Sari ., 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of                                      ( 96/C 31 /46 )
the European Communities (Agents : Julian Currall and
Jean-Luc Fagnart) — application for the annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 26 April 1994 refusing the                             (Language of the case: English)
applicants the benefits provided for in Article 73 ( 2 ) of the
Staff Regulations of officials in the event of the accidental        An action against the Council of the European Union was
death of an official — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, President, and           Communities on 7 November 1995 by the European
K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            Fertilizer Manufacturers Association, represented by
given a judgment on 9 January 1996 , in which it:                    Dominique Voillemot of Gide Loyrette, Paris, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1 . dismisses the action .                                           Zeyen Beghin Feider, 67 rue Ermesinde .
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(■) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       — annul       Article   1    of   Council     Regulation    ( EC )
                                                                          No 2022/95 ,
                                                                     — order that such anti-dumping duty imposed by that
                                                                          provision be maintained until the competent institutions
                                                                          adopt the measures needed to comply with this
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                     judgment,
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 6 December 1995
                                                                     — order to the Council to pay the costs .
in Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of
                           the Regions                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          ( 96/C 31 /45 )
                                                                     The applicant, an association representing the European
                                                                     ammonium industry, challenges the abovementioned
                (Language of the case: French)                       regulation, in so far as by fixing in it the profit margin of the
                                                                     European industry at 5 % on actual costs , the defendant
In Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez, residing at 29               institution made a manifest error of appraisal of the facts of
                                                                     the case .
Avenue du Mont Kemmel, Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an addres for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                The applicant cannot agree with the Commission's
Fort Rheinsheim, v. Committee of the Regions, 27 Galerie              statement to the effect that a profit of 5 % on costs has been
Ravenstein, Brussels — application for suspension of the             used in recent anti-dumping cases concerning urea and UAN
procedure in competition CdR A/03/95 or of the prospective           solutions and was therefore considered as a reasonable
appointments to be made in consequence of that                       profit margin for nitrogen fertilizers in the present case . The
competition — the President of the Court of First Instance           choice of a 5 % profit margin cannot be used in the
made an order on 6 December 1995 , the operative part of             proceedings concerning two different products, other than
which is as follows :                                                 ammonium nitrate .


title: Action brought on 5 June 1997 by Società Camar s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-172/97)

text:
C 271 / 16             I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     6 . 9 . 97
2 . dismisses the claim for compensation;                              Action brought on 5 June 1997 by Societa Camar s.r.l.
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
3 . holds that there is no need to give a decision on the                                       (Case T-l 72/97)
     claim for default interest;
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /27 )
4 . orders the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1997 by
                                                                       Societa Camar s.r.l ., represented by Wilma Viscardini
                                                                       Dona, assisted by Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              the Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                            of 3 July 1997                             at the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
in Case T-201 /96: Smanor SA and Others v. Commission
               of the European Communities (')
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Failure to bring Treaty infringement proceedings —
Action for declaration of failure to act — Action for
                   damages — Inadmissibility)                          — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, that,
                            ( 97/C 271/26 )                                 by failing to provide that the licences for importing
                                                                            bananas from non-member countries or non
                                                                           traditional ACP countries to be allocated to Camar as
                 (Language of the case: French)                             a Category B operator during 1997 and for subsequent
                                                                           years pending restoration of its normal reference
                                                                            quantities should be calculated on the basis of the
In Case T-201/96 : Smanor SA, established at Saint-Martin
                                                                            quantities which Camar marketed in 1988 , 1989 and
d'Ecublei (France), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud,                       1990, the Commission has breached Article 30 of
residing at Saint-Martin-d'Ecublei , represented by                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 and the second
Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, 7—9 Rue du                        subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty,
General de Larminat, Creteil ( France ), v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright
and Jean-Francis Pasquier) — application, first, for a
declaration that, in failing to bring Treaty infringement              — order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and
proceedings against the French Republic under Article 169                  the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
of the EC Treaty, the Commission has failed to act, and,                   to pay compensation for the damage which the
second, for damages for the loss flowing from that failure                 applicant has suffered by reason of the Commission's
— the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),                           failure,
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President; B. Vesterdorf and
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 3 July 1997, the operative part of which is as                — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
follows :                                                                  applicant in these proceedings .
1 . The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . There is no need for a ruling on the application for
     leave to intervene;                                               The applicant company is the same as that in Case T-79/
                                                                       96 ( 1 ). It should first be pointed out in this regard, for
3 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and             purposes of clarity, that while in Case T-79/96 Camar is
     to pay the costs of the Commission;                               seeking licences for additional imports from non-member
                                                                       countries as a Category B operator to replace the Somali
                                                                       bananas which it is unable to import vis-a-vis its
4 . The French Republic is ordered to bear the costs                   traditional quantity, the applicant is in the present action
     incurred by it in connection with the submission of its           requesting that the licences for non-member countries
    application for leave to intervene.                                normally allocated to it as a Category B operator should
                                                                       be quantified, not on the basis of the imports over three
                                                                       years as provided for under Article 4 of Commission
(') OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1442/93 , but on the basis of imports
                                                                       in 1988 , 1989 and 1990 . For 1997, the three-year period
                                                                       provided for under Article 4 of that regulation consists of
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97          I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 271 /17
the years 1993 , 1994 and 1995 , which are not                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
representative of the applicant's true capacity for
importing from ACP countries, whereas the three years
                                                                    — annul the Commission decision of 5 March 1997
 1988 , 1989 and 1990 represent the last period during
which Camar was able to operate under normal                             rejecting complaint No R/1691 /96 lodged by the
conditions .                                                             applicant,
                                                                    — order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
The applicant accepts that the absence of Somali bananas                 the material and non-material damage which he
 by reason of the war and the subsequent crisis is outwith               suffered as a result of the conduct complained of in
the Commission's control. That, however, does not release                such an amount as the Court may consider to be
the defendant from responsibility for having failed to take              equitable,
cognizance of the fact that, up to 1995 , there was a
shortfall in Community supply corresponding to the
60 000 tonnes set out in the Annex to Council Regulation            — order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.
 ( EEC ) No 404/93 as traditional quantities, and that since
 1995, although exports of bananas from Somalia have
resumed, the quantities imported into the Community still           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
fall appreciably below the traditional quantity. The
Commission's liability stems from the fact that, although           The applicant, a Grade B 4 official working at the Joint
it had at its disposal the necessary powers conferred by            Research Institute in Ispra, contests the decision of the
the Council, it did not make use of them and thereby                Promotions Committee not to include his name on the list
adversely affected not only the general interests of the            of officials most eligible to be promoted to Grade B 3 in
Community but also the specific interest of Camar in its            the 1996 budgetary year.
capacity as a traditional importer of Somali bananas into
the Community.
                                                                    The applicant places specific emphasis in this regard on
                                                                    the delay in compiling his staff report for the period July
Camar takes the view that, although failing to increase the         1993 to June 1995, which was not forwarded to him until
tariff quota for non-member countries to take account of            25 February 1997. That delay deprived him of the
the deficit attributable to Somali bananas, as provided for         opportunity to be included on the abovementioned list of
under Article 16 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , and        officials eligible for promotion. The absence of that
allocating to Camar the portion of that increase to which           periodic staff report prevented the appointing authority
it was entitled, the Commission ought at least to have              from taking full cognizance of his qualities and work
taken the necessary measures pursuant to Article 30 of              capacity. That fact had a decisive bearing, in negative and
that regulation to adjust its reference quantities in order to      preclusive terms, on the promotions procedure .
allow Camar to obtain larger licences for importing
bananas from non-member countries as a Category B
operator. The applicant interprets this omission as                 The applicant points out that during his first 16 years in
constituting a breach of the principle of non                      Grade B 4, which he has occupied for some 21 years, his
discrimination .                                                    work was distinguished by professionalism and
                                                                    conscientiousness, as is moreover confirmed by the staff
                                                                    reports concerning those periods. It is for that reason
(') Case T-79/96 Camar v. Commission ( OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 ,   difficult to believe that for some 16 years of work all the
     p. 13 ).                                                       officials eligible for promotion in the same way as the
                                                                    applicant have always proved to be more meritorious on a
                                                                    comparative examination of their merits and staff reports.
                                                                    In support of his submissions, the applicant puts forward
                                                                    the following grounds :
Action brought on 6 June 1997 by Augusto Fichtner
    against the Commission of the European Communities              — abuse of power based on discrimination,
                       ( Case T-l 73/97)
                         ( 97/C 271/28 )                            — breach and misapplication of Article 24 of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    — breach of substantive forms,
An action against the Commission of the European                    — breach of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and its
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       implementing provisions.
Instance of the European Communities on 6 June 1997 by
Augusto Fichtner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of
the Pavia Bar, 6 Via Orrigoni, Varese ( Italy ).


7.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 226/27
Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of                          Removal from the register of Case C-10/99 (1)
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (1999/C 226/48)
                        (Case C-230/99)
                                                                      By order of 29 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                        (1999/C 226/46)                               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-10/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
An action against the French Republic was brought before the          from the Amtsgericht München): Peter Feiler v Karlsruher
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June               Lebensversicherungs-AG.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Olivier
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the        (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
Legal Service, acting as Agent with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Declare that, by adopting the order of 9 November 1994                     Removal from the register of Case C-63/98 (1)
    ‘concerning rubber material and rubber articles in contact
    with foodstuffs, food products and beverages for consump-
    tion’, without expressly recognising the technical rules                                  (1999/C 226/49)
    standards and manufacturing processes which are lawfully
    followed in the other Member States, and the findings             By order of 4 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
    from the related checks and tests carried out by an               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    inspection and supervisory body or a laboratory officially        the register of Case C-63/98: Commission of the European
    recognised in another Member State, the French Republic           Communities v Netherlands.
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 (ex
    Article 30) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The effect of the French rules referred to in the application is
to prevent the marketing in France of the products concerned                 Removal from the register of Case C-311/98 (1)
which, albeit lawfully manufactured or marketed in another
Member State, do not comply with the French legislation;
those rules therefore constitute a restriction on intra-                                      (1999/C 226/50)
Community trace. The Commission does not deny that the
provisions of the above order are designed to meet public             By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
health requirements, but it questions whether they are pro-           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
portionate in relation to the objective pursued in the absence        the register of Case C-311/98: Commission of the European
of any provision for the mutual recognition of products which         Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
ensure an equivalent lever of protection to that sought under
the French legislation.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-292/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 226/47)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-66/98 (1)
By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber                                 (1999/C 226/51)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-292/98:               By order of 26 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.            of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                      ordered the removal from the register of Case C-66/98:
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                            Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1999.


title: Case T-157/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Paroc v OHIM (INSULATE FOR LIFE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark INSULATE FOR LIFE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Merely confirmatory decision — Partial inadmissibility)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Paroc v OHIM (INSULATE FOR LIFE)
   (Case T-157/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark INSULATE FOR LIFE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Merely confirmatory decision - Partial inadmissibility)
   2011/C 89/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Paroc Oy AB (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Palm)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2008 (Case R 54/2008-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign INSULATE FOR LIFE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Paroc Oy AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 1998 in Case C-145/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations - Obligation of prior communication under Directive 83/189/EEC)

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 209/11
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 5 May 1998                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-404/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd v. Commission of                                        of 7 May 1998
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case C-145/97: Commission of the European
(Emergency assistance given by the Community to the                              Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð
Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð                                (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Obligation of prior
            Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')                             communication under Directive 83/189/EEC)
                                                                                (98/C 209/22)
                         (98/C 209/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-145/97: Commission of the European
In Case C-404/96 P: Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly trading             Communities (Agents: Richard B. Wainwright and Jean-
as Richco Commodities Ltd, a company incorporated                    Francis Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan
under Bermudian law, established at Hamilton (Bermuda),              Devadder) Ð application for a declaration that, by
represented by M. M. Slotboom, P. V. F. Bos and J. G. A.             adopting the Decree of 9 November 1993 of the
van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                Government of the Region of Metropolitan Brussels
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,                concerning standards of quality and safety in furnished
11 Rue Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the                   accommodation without first communicating it to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission in draft form, the Kingdom of Belgium has
(Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996 in Case T-509/93                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council
Richco v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1181, seeking to                  Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                 procedure for the provision of information in the field
proceedings being the Commission of the European                     of technical standards and regulations (OJ L 109 of
Communities (Agents: B. J. Drijber and N. Khan) Ð the                26.4.1983, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive 88/
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,             182/EEC of 22 March 1988 (OJ L 81 of 26.3.1988, p. 75)
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)                   Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,            Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R.
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,           Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, G. Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,            Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:                Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Loutermann-Hubeau,                      judgment on 7 May 1998, in which it:
Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May
1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares that by adopting the Decree of 9 November
                                                                          1993 of the Government of the Region of
1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  Metropolitan Brussels concerning standards of quality
     24 September 1996 in Case T-509/93 Richco v.                         and safety in furnished accommodation without first
     Commission inasmuch as it dismisses as inadmissible                  communicating it to the Commission in draft form,
     the action for annulment brought by Glencore Grain                   the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     Ltd, formerly trading as Richco Commodities Ltd.                     obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)
                                                                          of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983
                                                                          laying down a procedure for the provision of
                                                                          information in the field of technical standards and
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for                regulations, as amended by Council Directive (88/182/
     judgment on the substance.                                           EEC) of 22 March 1988.
3. Reserves costs.                                                   2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                             (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.


title: Cases T-274/00 and T-296/00: Action brought on 18 September 2000 by Verde Sport SpA and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.12.2000            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 372/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 18 September 2000 by Verde Sport
                                                                          SpA and Others against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                       of 5 October 2000                                                   (Cases T-274/00 and T-296/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/23)
in Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Delay in its                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             drafting)                                    European Communities on 18 September 2000 by Verde
                                                                          Sport SpA and Others, represented by Alfredo Bianchini, of
                                                                          the Venice Bar.
                        (2000/C 372/22)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC of 25 No-
                                                                                vember 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by
                                                                                way of relief from social security contributions under
                  (Language of the case: French)                                Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;
                                                                          —     in the alternative, annul the abovementioned decision in
                                                                                so far as it requires recovery of the relief granted;
In Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Orp-Jauche                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and
V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and
B. Wägenbaur) — application, first, for annulment of the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade               Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure and,                    Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
second, for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the           (1) Not yet published.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to
      grade A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure is
      annulled;
                                                                          Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Manuel Francis-
                                                                          co Caballero Montoya against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed;
                                                                                (Case T-303/00)
3.    The Commission shall bear the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 372/24)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.                                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 22 September 2000 by Manuel
                                                                          Francisco Caballero Montoya, residing in Brussels represented
                                                                          by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia.


title: Case T-85/10: Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Alfa Acciai SpA v European Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/66

         Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Alfa Acciai SpA v European Commission
   (Case T-85/10)
   2010/C 100/97
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Alfa Acciai SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, avvocato, S. Amoruso, avvocato, L. Vitolo, avvocato)

      Defendant(s): European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 fin. of 30 September 2009 (COMP/37.956 — reinforcing bars, re-adoption) (‘the Decision’), as supplemented and amended by the Decision of the European Commission C(2009) 9912 fin. of 8 December 2009, in so far as it declares an infringement of Article 65 CS by Alfa Acciai S.p.A and imposes a fine of EUR 7 175 million;

         In the alternative:

               —

               Annulment of Article 2 of the Decision which imposes a fine on the applicant;

         In the further alternative:

               —

               Reduction of the fine;

               —

               An order that the defendant pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-70/10 Feralpi Holding Spa v Commission and Case T-83/10 Riva Fire Spa v Commission.
   In particular, the applicant argues
   Lack of authority of the Commission to impose penalties for breach of Article 65 CS once that Treaty ceased to be in force and in any event to use Articles 7(1) and 23(2) of Regulation EC No 1/2003 (1) as a legal basis.
   The infringement of the rights of the defence of the applicant in the preceding administrative procedure in so far as the Commission did not send a further statement of objections but confined itself to giving notice by letter of its intention to re-adopt the Decision. The Member States were not heard and did not participate in a final hearing and it was made impossible for the applicant to state its own position in view of the re-adoption of the Decision.
   Infringement of Article 65(1) CS in so far as the facts described in the Decision do not constitute a single continuing agreement.
   Infringement of the Guidelines for setting fines pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, and infringement of the principles of equality and proportionality in the assessment of the conduct of the applicant and in setting the amount of the fine.

      (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: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 29 June 1995 in Case C-135/93: Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Act adopted on the basis of Article 93 (1) of the EC Treaty - Extension - Admissibility)

text:
No C 229/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          2 . 9 . 95
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                                               of 29 June 1995
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open               in Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the
      network provisions to leased lines, the Grand Duchy of                                European Communities 0 )
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under             (Action for annulment — Act adopted on the basis
      Article IS of that Directive;                                     of Article 93 (1) of the EC Treaty — Extension —
                                                                                Admissibility)
2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                                                  ( 95/C 229/07 )
       costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(') OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 19 . 6 . 1992 , p . 27 .                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto
                                                                        Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado,
                                                                        Abogado del Estado ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz
                                                                        and Michel Nolin ) — application for 1 . a declaration that
                                                                        the Commission 's decision of 23 December 1992 not to
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   modify the Community framework for State aid to the
                          of 29 June 1995                               motor vehicle industry and to extend its validity until the
        in Case C-391/92 : Commission of the European                   Commission organized a review of it is non-existent or, if
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( J )                   appropriate, the annulment of that decision, and 2 . the
 (Free movement ofgoods — Processed milk for infants —                  annulment of the extension of the said framework by
                                                                        Decision 91 /C 81 /05 ( 2 ) in so far as that decision is the basis
      Prohibition of marketing other than by pharmacies)
                                                                        for the decision of 23 December 1992 — the Court,
                             ( 95/C 229/06                              composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.
                                                                        Schockweiler ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                          of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C.
                                                                        Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                        G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Advocate-General; Registrar, R. Grass, has given a
           published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
                                                                         1 . dismisses the application;
In Case C-391 /92 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : initially R. Pellicer and V. Melgar,            2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 subsequently H. Van Lier and V. Melgar, assisted by N.
 Dontas , of the Athens Bar ) v. Hellenic Republic ( Agents :            f 1 ) OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
P. Kamarineas, P. Athanassoulis and C. Sitara ) —                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 81 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 4 .
 application for a declaration that, by requiring that
 processed milk for infants should be sold exclusively by
 pharmacies under Article 10 of Ministerial Decision
 No A2/oik . 361 of 29 January 1988 , the Hellenic Republic                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC                                  ( Fourth Chamber)
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.                                             of 29 June 1995
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers )              in Case C-437/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
 G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,              the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v. Temic
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch                          Telefunken Microelectronic GmbH ( l )
 and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate-General; C. O. Lenz;
 L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     (Customs inward processing relief arrangements —
 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:                                 Discharge ofthe reliefarrangements by theplacing ofgoods
                                                                          under the system of processing under customs control —
                                                                                Quantitative limits)
  1 . dismisses the application;                                                                      ( 95/C 229/08 )
 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (') OJ No C 326 , 11 . 12 . 1992 .                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-437/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance


title: Case T-113/11: Action brought on 23 February 2011 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v Commission

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/30

         Action brought on 23 February 2011 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v Commission
   (Case T-113/11)
   2011/C 145/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Loschelder und V. Schoene, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1122/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)];

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the necessary costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the division of powers

                           —

                           By its first plea the applicant alleges infringement of the division of powers under Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1) as no national procedure was initiated in respect of the protected geographical indication ‘Gouda Holland’ registered by means of the contested regulation.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the original application applied for registration of the term ‘Hollandse Gouda’ and that the national preliminary procedure which is a necessary requirement pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 510/2006 took place only in respect of that name.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (2)

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that ‘Gouda Holland’ is not a Dutch expression.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1898/2006

                           —

                           In the context of the third plea the applicant submits that the registered name is not used.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           The applicant submits that there is infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 as ‘Gouda Holland’ is not a ‘traditional’ non-geographical name.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           In the context of the fifth plea the applicant submits that there is infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 510/2006 as ‘Gouda Holland’ does not have any specific characteristics or a reputation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 30 and 36 TFEU

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that the contested regulation unjustifiably restricts the freedom of movement of goods on the basis that the milk from dairy farmers who are resident in the Netherlands, which is the only milk authorised in respect of ‘Gouda Holland’, has no special characteristics.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits in particular that there is infringement of Article 2(2), in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, as ‘Holland’ as a synonym for ‘Netherlands’ is the name of a country. Furthermore, there is no exceptional case, which is required in respect of the registration of names of countries.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that, in view of the earlier registration ‘Noord-Hollandse Gouda g.U.’, the registration of ‘Gouda Holland’ took place without due regard being had to bona fide and local usage and gives rise to a danger of consumers being misled.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of procedural principles, and an error of assessment

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant submits that the defendant did not make it clear in the contested regulation, that the indication ‘Gouda’ is generic. The applicant takes the view that such a clarification was possible according to the case-law of the Court and the practice of the Commission and was, in view of the facts and circumstances, necessary. Its absence infringes the principle of proportionality and procedural principles and constitutes an error of assessment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 369, p. 1).