title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations — Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admission — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)

text:
27.1.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 28/3
England and Wales, (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling             of England and Wales (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Queen and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport               The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and the Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd,                   ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom — on the interpretation
interveners: World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) and                      of Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
Avon Wildlife Trust — on the interpretation of Articles 2(3)              25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
and 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                 concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and                which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:                     or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),             p. 117) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O.                  M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting as President
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen,            of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporte-
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  ur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                   2000, in which it has ruled:
On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, a Member State may not take account
of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local
characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when     Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to      1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community       movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
importance.                                                               grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted by the authorities of
                                                                          a Member State refusing a Community national, not in possession of
                                                                          a residence permit, leave to enter its territory cannot be classified as a
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                               ‘decision concerning entry’ within the meaning of Article 8 thereof in
                                                                          a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings where the person
                                                                          concerned was temporarily admitted to the territory of that Member
                                                                          State, pending a decision following the enquiries required for the
                                                                          investigation of her case, and therefore resided for almost seven
                                                                          months in that territory before that decision was notified to her, since
                                                                          such a national must be entitled to the procedural safeguards referred
                                                                          to in Article 9 of Directive 64/221.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                          The time which elapsed after the competent authority’s decision as a
                       of 9 November 2000                                 result, first, of the suspensory effect of legal proceedings and, second,
                                                                          of the grant of permission to take up employment pending the
                                                                          determination of those proceedings, cannot have any bearing on the
in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 classification of that decision under Directive 64/221.
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                   Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (1)
(Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations —
Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admis-
                                                                          (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
sion — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8
                  and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)
                           (2001/C 28/05)
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-357/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal


title: Case T-171/06: Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Laytoncrest v OHIM — Erico (TRENTON)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/32

         Action brought on 22 June 2006 — Laytoncrest v OHIM — Erico (TRENTON)
   (Case T-171/06)
   (2006/C 212/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Laytoncrest Limited (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: Nikolaos K. Dontas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Erico International Corporation (represented by: Gille Hrabal Struck Neidlein Prop Roos, Düsseldorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of 26 April 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R-406/2004-2

               —

               referral of the case for a decision on the merits to the Boards of Appeal of OHIM

               —

               an order that OHIM and Erico International Corporation, if it intervenes, pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Laytoncrest

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark TRENTON for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Application No 2 298 438

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Erico International Corporation

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: word mark LENTON for goods in Classes 6 and 7
   Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected. Opponent ordered to bear the costs.
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal and opposition proceedings closed, by reason of the applicant's implied withdrawal of the application for registration of the trade mark in question

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 44 and 61(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 50(1) of Commission implementing Regulation No 2868/95. The applicant claims that in the contested decision the fact that it did not take part in the opposition and appeal procedure was wrongly considered to amount to withdrawal of its application for registration of the trade mark in question, whereas it states that the Board of Appeal should, despite the applicant's failure to submit observations, have continued the procedure and reached a decision on the merits.
   Infringement of the fundamental legal principle of observance of the rights of the defence and the right to a hearing in accordance with Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 54 of implementing Regulation No 2868/95, pursuant to which the Board of Appeal should have given the applicant an opportunity to state its position before a decision was given against it.
   Infringement of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/79. The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction and misused its powers in finding that the applicant had withdrawn by implication its entire application for registration.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 1997 in Case C-137/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-transposition of Directive 91/414/EEC)

text:
7.2.98                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 41/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           Articles 6, 48, 52, 58 and 221 of the EC Treaty,
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                     Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the
                                                                           Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers
                    of 27 November 1997                                    to remain in the territory of a Member State after
                                                                           having been employed in that State and Article 7 of
       in Case C-62/96: Commission of the European                         Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
            Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)                           concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to
                                                                           remain in the territory of another Member State after
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                           having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
Registration of vessels Ð Nationality requirement for the
                                                                           capacity;
                            owner)
                         (98/C 41/04)
                                                                      2. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: Greek)                         (1) OJ C 158, 1.6.1996.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-62/96: Commission of the European                                               of 27 November 1997
Communities (Agents: Frank Benyon and Maria Condou
Durande) v. Hellenic Republic (Agents: Aikaterini Samoni-                    in Case C-137/96: Commission of the European
Randou, assisted by Evi Skandalou and Stamatina Vodina)                     Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
Ð application for a declaration that, by maintaining in
force legislative provisions which restrict the right to              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
registration in the Greek shipping registers to vessels more                   Non-transposition of Directive 91/414/EEC)
than half the shares in which are owned by Greek
nationals or owned by Greek legal persons more than half                                        (98/C 41/05)
of whose capital is held by Greek nationals, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6,
48, 52, 58 and 221 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of                                     (Language of the case: German)
29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the
territory of a Member State after having been employed in
that State (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402)
and Article 7 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of
17 December 1974 concerning the right of nationals of a                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Member State to remain in the territory of another                              published in the European Court Reports)
Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a
self-employed capacity (OJ L 14, 20.1.1975, p. 10) Ð the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
                                                                      In Case C-137/96: Commission of the European
President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) against
Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
                                                                      Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and
Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; G.
                                                                      Sabine Maaû) Ð application for a declaration that, by not
Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                      adopting within the period prescribed all the laws,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                      regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the
27 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                      transposition into domestic law of Council Directive 91/
                                                                      414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
                                                                      protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19.8.1991,
                                                                      p. 1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
1. declares that, by maintaining in force legislative                 its obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
     provisions which restrict the right to registration in the       Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
     Greek shipping registers to vessels more than half the           Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P.
     shares in which are owned by Greek nationals or                  Puissochet (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La
     owned by Greek legal persons more than half of                   Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
     whose capital is held by Greek nationals, the Hellenic           judgment on 27 November 1997, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/4                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.2.98
1. declares that, by not having within the period                     national, the competent social security institutions and the
     prescribed adopted all the laws, regulations and                 courts of a Member State must accept certificates and
     administrative provisions necessary to ensure that               analogous documents relative to personal status issued by
     Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991                     the competent authorities of the other Member States,
     concerning the placing of plant protection products on           unless their accuracy is seriously undermined by concrete
     the market Ð with the exception of Article 10 (1),               evidence relating to the individual case in question.
     second indent, thereof Ð was transposed into
     domestic law, the Federal Republic of Germany has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;           (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.
2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 December 1997
                                                                      in Case C-188/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the éstre Landsret: Fantask A/S and Others v.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) (1)
                       of 2 December 1997
                                                                      (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Registration charges on
in Case C-336/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               companies Ð Procedural time-limits under national law)
the Sozialgericht Hamburg): Eftalia Dafeki v. Landesver-
               sicherungsanstalt Württemberg (1)                                               (98/C 41/07)
(Freedom of movement for workers Ð Equal treatment Ð
Social security Ð Rule of national law according different
probative value to certificates of civil status depending on                         (Language of the case: Danish)
        whether they are of national or foreign origin)
                           (98/C 41/06)
                (Language of the case: German)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    In Case C-188/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret, Denmark, for
                                                                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
In Case C-336/94: reference to the Court under Article 177            that court between Fantask A/S and Others and
of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht (Social Court)                Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) Ð on the
Hamburg (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                    interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
proceedings pending before that court between Eftalia                 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
Dafeki and Landesversicherungsanstalt Württemberg Ð                   (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as most
on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC                 recently amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
Treaty in the light of German provisions under which                  10 June 1985 (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court
certificates of civil status are accorded different probative         composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
value, depending on whether they are German or foreign                Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of
Ð the Court, composed of: H. Ragnemalm (President of                  Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
the Fourth and Sixth Chambers), acting for the President,             P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,               Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann                 Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,                     Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                2 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December                 follows:
1997, in which it has ruled:
In proceedings for determining the entitlements to social             1. On a sound construction of Article 12 (1)(e) of
security benefits of a migrant worker who is a Community                   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969


title: Case T-368/03: Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Rafael de Bustamante Tello against the Council of the European Union

text:
10.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 7/41
Action brought on 27 October 2003 by Philippe Van-                        —     breach of the principle of the rule of law and of the EC
langendonck against the Commission of the European                              Treaty since, contrary to the opinion of the chairman of
                          Communities                                           the selection board, the Director of EPSO stated that the
                                                                                competition notice does not allow for the possibility of
                                                                                an oral test on an ex aequo basis, even though it is settled
                         (Case T-361/03)
                                                                                case-law that the selection board is bound by the terms
                                                                                of the competition notice;
                          (2004/C 7/75)
                                                                          —     breach of the principle of equal treatment of candidates.
                   (Language of the case: French)                               The applicant asks in that connection why the selection
                                                                                board, which performed its duties perfectly well in
                                                                                selecting and comparing the merits of candidates ranging
                                                                                from best to 149th in order of merit, suddenly proved
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of                     incapable of comparing and making a selection among
the European Communities on 27 October 2003 against                             seven candidates on an ex aequo basis.
the Commission of the European Communities by Philippe
Vanlangendonck, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented
by Bernard Laurent, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:
—     verify the legality of the rejection of complaints Nos R/
      134/03 and R/139/03 registered by ADMIN. B2 —                       Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Rafael de
      Appeals Unit, on 27 March 2003, adopted by the acting               Bustamante Tello against the Council of the European
      Director of EPSO in his capacity of appointing authority                                          Union
      on 17 July 2002, notified by letter sent on 25 July 2003
      and received on 28 July 2003 in relation to a refusal to
      annul or amend a published list of successful candidates                                    (Case T-368/03)
      in competition COM/A/10/01 which was manifestly
      vitiated by errors or irregularities;                                                         (2004/C 7/76)
—     verify the legality of the refusal by the Chairman of the
      selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 and the                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
      appointing authority to explain and disclose objective
      and relevant information;
—     order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 400 000 to                An action against the Council of the European Union was
      the applicant by way of damages for the loss suffered               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      (subject to increase or decrease of that sum in the course          Communities on 4 November 2003 by Rafael de Bustamante
      of the proceedings).                                                Tello, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Ramón
                                                                          García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant takes exception to the administration’s refusal             —     annul the Council decision of 28 July 2003 which
to annul or amend a published list of successful candidates in                  dismisses the claim of 14 April 2003 in that it does not
competition COM/A/10/01 which was manifestly vitiated by                        recognise the right to receive an expatriation allowance
errors or irregularities and the refusal to provide information                 and, accordingly, other related allowances;
as asked for by the applicant to enable him to consider whether
or not he has been the subject of discrimination on grounds               —     order the defendant to pay the full costs.
of his nationality in the course of the procedure and the
compilation of results of the oral test in the abovementioned
competition.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
—     a manifest error of law or of fact in that the selection            The applicant in the present case challenges the failure of the
      board placed 156 people on the list of successful                   appointing authority to recognise the right to an expatriation
      candidates rather than the 150 prescribed by the compe-             allowance and other related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII
      tition notice;                                                      to the Staff Regulations).
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/42                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          —     order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in
                                                                                these proceedings.
—    a combination of an error in law and a manifest error of
     assessment of the facts, inasmuch as the contested
     decision does not consider the work carried out by him
     for the Delegation of the Autonomous Community of                    Pleas in law and main arguments
     Murcia in Brussels ‘work done for [a] State’, in the sense
     recognised in the Staff Regulations as an exception to the
     reference period. In the alternative, he claims that the
                                                                          The Contested Decision in this case rejected the applicants
     Council wrongly concluded in the contested decision that
                                                                          request to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance listed in
     the applicant’s centre of interest and habitual residence
                                                                          Annex I of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on
     were in Brussels and not in Murcia;
                                                                          the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
—    infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in                 provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     that the appointing authority discriminated between                  of dangerous substances (1).
     essentially identical personal situations.
                                                                          In support of their application the applicants submit that the
                                                                          Contested Decision is unlawful on the grounds that the
                                                                          classification of rosin was decided on the basis of test results
                                                                          relating to a different substance, namely oxidised rosin. They
                                                                          further submit that the classification in question is not
Action brought on 29 October 2003 by Arizona Chemical                     supported by the conclusion of the scientific assessment
B.V., Eastman Belguim B.V.B.A., Resinall Europe B.V.B.A.                  conducted under Directive 67/548 and was decided on the
and Cray Valley Iberica S.A. against the Commission of                    wrong premise that rosin always produces oxidised rosin and
                 the European Communities                                 that the latter causes skin sensitisation under normal handling
                                                                          and use. The applicants also contend that the Contested
                                                                          Decision is unlawful because it is based on the ‘precautionary
                         (Case T-369/03)
                                                                          principle’, which does not apply to hazard-based decisions,
                                                                          that the Contested Decision violates the EC Treaty as it fails to
                          (2004/C 7/77)                                   consider new, state-of-the-art scientific evidence on oxidised
                                                                          rosin and that, finally, the Contested Decision also violates
                  (Language of the case: English)                         fundamental principles of Community law, more especially
                                                                          the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and
                                                                          proportionality.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          (1) OJ P 196 , 16.08.1967, p. 1-98, English special edition: Series I
European Communities on 29 October 2003 by Arizona                            Chapter 1967, p. 234.
Chemical B.V., Almere, the Netherlands, Eastman Belguim
B.V.B.A., Kallo, Belguim, Resinall Europe B.V.B.A., Brugge,
Belguim and Cray Valley Iberica S.A., Madrid, Spain , represent-
ed by Claudio Mereu and Koen Van Maldegem, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul Commission          Decision    D(2003)430245        of
                                                                          Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Yves Mahieu
     20 August 2003;
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—    declare that the rosin entry in Annex I of Council Directive
     67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of                                           (Case T-372/03)
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
     to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
     substances, is unlawful;                                                                       (2004/C 7/78)
—    in the alternative, declare that the rosin Annex I entry is
     inapplicable to the Applicants under Article 241 EC                                     (Language of the case: French)
     Treaty;
—    compensate Applicants for damages suffered as a result of
     the adoption of the contested Decision, in the provisional           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     amount of EUR 1; or, in the alternative declare the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     Commission liable for imminent damage foreseeable with               European Communities on 10 November 2003 by Yves
     sufficient certainty, even if the damage cannot be precisely         Mahieu, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel,
     assessed;                                                            lawyer.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 15 January 1998 in Case C-37/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie): Belgian State v. Ghent Coal Terminal NV (Value added tax - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17 - Right to deduct - Adjustment of deductions)

text:
C 55/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   State), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                        (First Chamber)                               pending before that court between Ballast Nedam Groep
                                                                      NV and Belgian State Ð on the interpretation of the
                    of 18 December 1997                               judgment of the Court of 14 April 1994 in Case C-389/92
in Case C-309/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Ballast Nedam Groep [1994] ECR I-1289 Ð the Court
the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di              (Third Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Tivoli): Daniele Annibaldi v. Sindaco del Comune di                   Almeida, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P.
           Guidonia, Presidente Regione Lazio (1)                     Puissochet (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La
                                                                      Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
(Agriculture Ð Nature and archaeological park Ð                       a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
Economic activity Ð Protection of fundamental rights Ð
              Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                          (98/C 55/21)                                Council Directive 71/304/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning
                                                                      the abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       in respect of public works contracts and on the award of
                                                                      public works contracts to contractors acting through
                                                                      agencies or branches and Council Directive 71/305/EEC
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                      of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      for the award of public works contracts are to be
                                                                      interpreted as meaning that the authority competent to
In Case C-309/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            decide on an application for registration submitted by a
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma,              dominant legal person of a group is under an obligation,
Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli (Rome District Magistrates'              where it is established that that person actually has
Court, Tivoli Division), for a preliminary ruling in the              available to it the resources of the companies belonging to
proceedings pending before that court between Daniele                 the group that are necessary to carry out the contracts, to
Annibaldi and Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia,                         take account of the references of those companies in
Presidente Regione Lazio Ð on the interpretation of                   assessing the suitability of the legal person concerned, in
Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty and of the general                     accordance with the criteria mentioned in Articles 23 to
principles of Community law Ð the Court (First                        28 of Directive 71/305/EEC.
Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the First Chamber, P. Jann and
L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,              (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in
which it has ruled:
The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions
referred by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
                                                                      in Case C-37/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Belgian Hof van Cassatie): Belgian State v. Ghent Coal
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           Terminal NV (1)
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                      (Value added tax Ð Sixth VAT Directive Ð Article 17 Ð
                    of 18 December 1997                                      Right to deduct Ð Adjustment of deductions)
in Case C-5/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                (98/C 55/23)
the Raad van State, Belgium): Ballast Nedam Groep NV
                      v. Belgian State (1)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Public-works contracts Ð                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Registration of contractors Ð Entity to be taken into
                            account)
                          (98/C 55/22)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        In Case C-37/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
         published in the European Court Reports)                     of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie
                                                                      (Court of Cassation), for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-5/97: reference to the Court under Article 177              proceedings pending before that court between Belgian
of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State (Council of                  State and Ghent Coal Terminal NV Ð on the
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 55/13
interpretation of Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive          freedom of movement for workers within the Community
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) Ð the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð               Court, composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Third
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                   and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, H.
assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6. 1977, p. 1) Ð the Court                  Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
(Second Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                         Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as president of the           P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
Second Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and G.                    (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L.
Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-                    Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 1998, in               judgment on 15 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
which it has ruled:
                                                                     1. Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of
Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                       15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common                         workers within the Community preclude a clause in a
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                    collective agreement applicable to the public service of
must be construed as allowing a taxable person acting as                  a Member State which provides for promotion on
such to deduct the VAT payable by him on goods or                         grounds of seniority for employees of that service after
services supplied to him for the purpose of investment                    eight years' employment in a salary group determined
work intended to be used in connection with taxable                       by that agreement without taking any account of
transactions. The right to deduct remains acquired where,                 previous periods of comparable employment
by reason of circumstances beyond his control, the taxable                completed in the public service of another Member
person has never made use of those goods or services for                  State.
the purpose of carrying out taxable transactions. A supply
of investment goods during the adjustment period, where
such occurs, may give rise to an adjustment of the                   2. A clause in a collective agreement entailing
deduction under the conditions set out in Article 20(3) of                discrimination contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty and
Directive 77/388/EEC.                                                     to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 is
                                                                          null and void by virtue of Article 7(4) of that
                                                                          Regulation. Without requiring or waiting for that
(1) OJ C 101, 22.4.1995.
                                                                          clause to be abolished by collective negotiation or by
                                                                          some other procedure, the national court must
                                                                          therefore apply the same rules to the members of the
                                                                          group disadvantaged by that discrimination as those
                                                                          applicable to the other workers.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                     of 15 January 1998
in Case C-15/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Kalliope Schöning-
   Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1)
(Freedom of movement for persons Ð Collective                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
agreement applicable to public sector employees Ð
Promotion on grounds of seniority Ð Professional                                          of 15 January 1998
       experience acquired in another Member State)                  in Case C-44/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                         (98/C 55/24)                                the Bundesvergabeamt): Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria
                                                                        AG and Others v. Strohal Rotationsdruck GesmbH (1)
               (Language of the case: German)                        (Public procurement Ð Procedure for the award of public
                                                                     works contracts Ð State printing office Ð Subsidiary
                                                                                pursuing commercial activities)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                (98/C 55/25)
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-15/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court)
Hamburg, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
proceedings pending before that court between Kalliope                         published in the European Court Reports)
Schöning-Kougebetopoulou and Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg Ð on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC
Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC)                  In Case C-44/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on                      of the EC Treaty from the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case C-280/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (State aid - Fiscal bonus on certain taxes - Recovery of aid - Not absolutely impossible)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 72/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 29 January 1998                                                    of 29 January 1998
in Case C-61/95: Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the              in    Case   C-280/95: Commission of the             European
                  European Communities (1)                                         Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
 (Clearance of EAGGF accounts Ð Expenditure for 1991)                (State aid Ð Fiscal bonus on certain taxes Ð Recovery of
                                                                                aid Ð Not absolutely impossible)
                         (98/C 72/04)
                                                                                (98/C 72/05)
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-61/95: Hellenic Republic, (Agents: Panagiotis
Milonopoulos and Meletis Tsotsanis) v. Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: Xenophon Yataganas                 In Case C-280/95: Commission of the European
and Dimitrios Gouloussis) Ð application for the                      Communities (Agents: Antonio Aresu and Anders C.
annulment of Commission Decision 94/871/EC of                        Jessen) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto
21 December 1994 on the clearance of the accounts                    Leanza, assisted by Oscar Fiumara) Ð application for a
presented by the Member States in respect of the                     declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures
expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural                    necessary to comply with Commission Decision 93/496/
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee                       EEC of 9 June 1993 on State aid procedure C 32/92 (ex
Section (OJ L 352, 31.12.1994, p. 82), in so far as it               NN 67/92) Ð Italy (tax calculation for professional road
concerns the Hellenic Republic Ð the Court (Sixth                    hauliers) (OJ L 233, 16.9.1993, p. 10) and, in particular,
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                by failing to recover aid granted as from the 1992
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray               financial year in the form of a tax credit in income tax,
and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,                   municipal tax, or value added tax, unlawfully introduced
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 by Ministerial Decree of 28 January 1992 in favour of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January 1998, in               professional road hauliers in Italy, the Italian Republic has
which it:                                                            failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the
                                                                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,
                                                                     J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges; N.
1. Annuls       Commission      Decision      94/871/EC      of      Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
     21 December 1994 on the clearance of the accounts               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     presented by the Member States in respect of the                judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:
     expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee
     Section in so far as it did not conclusively accept the
     amount of GRD 3 531 558 038 in respect of                       1. Declares that, by not complying with Commission
     expenditure relating to leaf tobacco premiums and                    Decision 93/496/EEC of 9 June 1993 on State aid
     corresponding refunds as chargeable to the EAGGF;                    procedure C 32/92 (ex NN 67/92) Ð Italy (tax
                                                                          calculation for professional road hauliers), the Italian
                                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          EC Treaty;
2. For the remainder, dismisses the application;
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 119, 13.5.1995.                                             (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.


title: Case T-104/00: Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            represented by J. Stuyck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
— annul the two decisions of the Commission of 11 June                 Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
    1999 and 2 December 1999 transferring the applicant
    from the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    technical aspects’ unit to the ‘Food production and biotech-
    nology’ unit;                                                      — declare the action admissible and well founded;
— annul the appointment of another official to the ‘Foodstuffs         — annul the Commission Decision of 31 January 2000
    — Legislation and scientific and technical aspects’ unit;               reducing the amount referred to in Decision C (1994)
                                                                            3059 of 25 November 1994 approving the grant of
— order the European Commission to pay compensation for                     assistance through the European Union, European Social
    the material and non-material losses suffered;                          Fund, for an operational programme in Belgium (Flemish
                                                                            Community) under the Community support framework
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                           covered by Objective No 3;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests, in particular, the decision transferring       Pleas in law and main arguments
him, as deputy head of Unit III.E.1, to Unit III.E.2 within the
Industry Directorate.                                                  The applicant submits that the contested decision is based on
                                                                       an incorrect rejection of the lump-sum and result oriented
In support of his claims, the applicant maintains that:                financing which the applicant followed in compliance with the
                                                                       letter and spirit of the Community rules.
— the Commission has erred in its assessment of his abilities
    and of the situation existing within the unit;                     Moreover, the contested decision ignores the powers of the
                                                                       Member States to specify the method of financing products
— the Commission has infringed the rights of the defence,              within the Community in compliance with the Community
    since the contested decisions constituted, in reality, disci-      objectives.
    plinary measures;
— the appointment of another official to his former post was
    not in the interests of the service;
— insufficient reasons were given for the contested decisions;
— the Commission has misused its powers.                               Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-104/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/50)
Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds voor
de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap                                       (Language of the case: French)
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (Case T-102/00)                                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta,
                                                                       residing at Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by Chantal
                        (2000/C 176/49)                                Moreau, of the Brussels Bar, and Patrick Birden, of the
                                                                       Luxembourg Bar.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              — rule that the applicant is entitled to payment of the daily
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  subsistence allowance and to receive the second part of the
European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds                       installation allowance for his daughter upon his being
voor de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap,                   transferred to Brussels in January 1999.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision refusing payment to the applicant of the daily                  Trade Mark concerned:         ‘STREAMSERVE’ — Application
subsistence allowance and of the second part of an installation                                        No 198398.
allowance for his daughter upon his being transferred to
Brussels.                                                                Product or service:           Computer software and hardware
                                                                                (class numbers 9 and 16 of the
The applicant states in that regard that, having previously been                                       Nice classification).
transferred to Luxembourg, he was then required, in the
context of a new posting, once again to transfer his residence           Contested        Decision     Refusal of registration by the
and place of work to Brussels.                                           before the Board of           Examiner.
                                                                         Appeal:
In support of his claims, he argues that he is in his view
entitled to request that he be paid the daily subsistence                Pleas in law relied on:       — Infringement of Article 7
allowance and an installation allowance, to which any unmar-                                               (1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No
ried official with an officially recognised dependent child is                                             40/94.
automatically entitled. As regards the installation allowance,
this is intended to compensate for the expenses and difficulties                                       — Breach of the principle of non-
occasioned by the need to move house and settle in to a new                                                discrimination.
residence.
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve North
America Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                         Action brought on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
                         (Case T-106/00)                                 Reino against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                         (2000/C 176/51)
                                                                                (Case T-108/00)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/52)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Streamserve
North America Inc., represented by Magnus Nedstrand and Ulf                                 (Language of the case: French)
Willquist of the Swedish Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the contested decision in so far as the Court finds              European Communities on 27 April 2000 by Santiago Gómez-
    that the trade mark STREAMSERVE does not satisfy the                 Reino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Louis Dupont,
    conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council           of the Brussels Bar, and Marc-Albert Lucas and Michel
    Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                  Franchimont, of the Liège Bar.
    Community Trade Mark and remit the case back to the
    Examiner;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as
    it constitutes a sufficiently apparent breach of the principle
    of non-discrimination and remit the case back to the                 — annul or declare illegal and/or defective the decisions,
    Examiner;                                                                failures to adopt measures required under the Staff Regu-
                                                                             lations or straightforward measures forming the subject-
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.                          matter of the proceedings;


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-279/98 P: Cascades SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Liability for the infringement — Fines — Statement of reasons — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
27.1.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 28/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 November 2000
                                                                                of 16 November 2000
in Case C-248/98 P: NV Koninklijke KNP BT v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)                          in Case C-279/98 P: Cascades SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons —                     (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
                 Power of unlimited jurisdiction)                           (now Article 81(1) EC) — Liability for the infringement
                                                                            — Fines — Statement of reasons — Principle of non-
                            (2001/C 28/15)                                                               discrimination)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/16)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-248/98 P: NV Koninklijke KNP BT, established in                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Amsterdam, Netherlands, represented by T.R. Ottervanger, of                                      in the European Court Reports)
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke, 56-58 Rue Charles
Martel, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                   In Case C-279/98 P: Cascades SA, established in Bagnolet
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,                        (France), represented by J.-Y. Art, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-309/94                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
KNP BT v Commission [1998] ECR II-1007, seeking to have                     and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, appeal against the
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings                 judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
being, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R.                   Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
Lyal and W. Wils), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A.               14 May 1998 in Case T-308/94 Cascades v Commission
La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporte-                [1998] ECR II-925, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
ur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,               the other party to the proceedings being, Commission of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 European Communities (Agents: Richard Lyal and E. Gippini
on 16 November 2000, in which it:                                           Fournier) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
                                                                            Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, President
1.    Sets aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of       of the Chamber, P. Jann, and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-309/94           Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
      KNP BT v Commission;                                                  on 16 November 2000, in which it:
2.    Sets the amount of the fine imposed on NV Koninkliijke KNP            1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May
      BT by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                         1998 in Case T-308/94 Cascades v Commission in so far as
      13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the               it attributes to Cascades SA responsibility for the infringements
      EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) at EUR 2 600 000;                     committed by Van Duffel NV and Djupafors AB during the
                                                                                period from mid-1986 until February 1989 inclusive;
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
4.    Orders NV Koninklijke KNP BT to bear its own costs and to             2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
      pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission of the European
      Communities relating to the proceedings before the Court of           3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
      Justice;
5.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear             4.    Orders that the costs are reserved.
      one third of its own costs relating to the proceedings before the
      Court of Justice.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
( 1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.


title: Case T-63/12: Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/27

         Action brought on 13 February 2012 — Oil Turbo Compressor v Council
   (Case T-63/12)
   2012/C 98/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP on restrictive measures against Iran, (1) in so far as that legal act concerns the applicant;

               —

               Prescribe a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, asking the defendant to submit all the documents connected with the contested decision, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the facts said to underlie the decision
               The applicant submits in this regard that the contested decision is factually incorrect. That is the case in particular with regard to the defendant’s assumption in point 48 of Annex I to the contested decision that the applicant is affiliated to the EU-designated undertaking Sakhte Turbopomp va Kompressor (SATAK) (a.k.a. Turbo Compressor Manufacturer, TCMFG). The applicant is neither directly nor indirectly involved through a holding company in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and/or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or other weapons systems. There are therefore no facts which would justify the defendant’s decision and the associated interference with the applicant’s rights fundamental guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
               The applicant relies in this regard on interference with its freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the Charter and on the right to use and dispose of lawfully acquired property in the European Union under Article 17 of the Charter and the rights to equality and not to be discriminated against under Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to have its case dealt with fairly and to effective legal protection
               The applicant complains in this regard that the reasoning in point 48 of Annex I to the contested decision is general and does not on its own justify the major interference with fundamental rights. The defendant does not refer to the facts or evidence allegedly in its possession. The applicant is not aware of any facts or evidence which justify the contested decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rule-of-law principle of proportionality
               According to the applicant the contested decision also infringes the principle of proportionality because the inclusion of the applicant in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP bears no apparent relation to the objective of the decision, which is to prevent proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, the trade in and/or development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or other weapons systems by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The defendant also fails to show that the applicant’s exclusion from trade with the European Union is reasonable, in particular the least intrusive measure, in order to obtain the intended objective. The applicant further complains that the major interference with its fundamental rights was obviously not measured against the objective supposedly pursued by the defendant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the rule-of-law principle that everyone should have a fair hearing
               In this regard it is claimed that the defendant failed to provide sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP. The defendant thereby failed to comply with the legal obligation to indicate to the applicant what the specific reasons justifying its inclusion actually were. The contested decision was not served on the applicant nor was there any hearing. The applicant’s application for access to the case-file has to date not been granted.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71).


title: Case C-669/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
   (Case C-669/15)
   (2016/C 078/06)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Électricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF)

      Respondents: Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

      Question referred

   Are the Orders of 10 July 2006 and 12 January 2010, adopted pursuant to Decree 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, which were themselves adopted pursuant to Law 2000-108 of 10 February 2000, contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty establishing the European Community) in so far as they may constitute State aid which, since it was not notified to the Commission beforehand in accordance with Article 108(3) of that Treaty, would affect the legality of those orders?


title: Case T-578/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2014  — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission (Application for interim measures  — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market  — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance  — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information  — Application for suspension of operation of a measure  — Admissibility  — Urgency  — Prima facie case  — Weighing up of the interests involved)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/39

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission
   (Case T-578/13 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of the interests involved))
   2014/C 135/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision communicated to the applicants by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013 rejecting the request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates submitted by the applicants pursuant to Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 of 25 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Directive 91/414 as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive (OJ 2011 L 53, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               Operation of the Commission’s decision communicated to Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries Ltd by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013 rejecting their request for confidential treatment of certain information contained in the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates is suspended.

               2)

               The European Commission shall ensure that EFSA does not publish a version of the peer review report and final addendum thereto concerning the inclusion of the active substance potassium phosphonates that is more detailed than the redacted version included in the letter of Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries of 25 February 2013, as set out in Annex A3 to the application in the main proceedings.

               3)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-208/14: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — Richard Anton v ECHA

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/39

         Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — Richard Anton v ECHA
   (Case T-208/14) (1)

   (2015/C 127/54)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2003 in Case T-212/01: Arnaldo Lucacioni v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Insurance Against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease — Aggravation of injuries — Overlapping of capital and compensation provided by Articles 12 and 14 respectively of the Insurance Rules)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 112/31
lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                   2.     dismisses the remainder of the application;
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego
and J. F. Crespo Carrillo): Action against the decision of the               3.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 May 2001
(Case R-1086/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 331.
Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President,
J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 March
2003, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
                                                                             in Case T-237/01: Alcon Inc v Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — ‘BSS’
                                                                             — Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute
                                                                             ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/
                        of 26 February 2003                                  94 — Distinctive character acquired through use —
                                                                                Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
in Case T-212/01: Arnaldo Lucacioni v Commission of the
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/61)
(Officials — Insurance Against the Risk of Accident and
of Occupational Disease — Aggravation of injuries —                                              (Language of the case: English)
Overlapping of capital and compensation provided by
     Articles 12 and 14 respectively of the Insurance Rules)
                           (2003/C 112/60)                                   In Case T-237/01, Alcon Inc, formerly Alcon Universal
                                                                             Ltd, established in Hünenberg (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                             H. Porter, Solicitor and C. Morcom QC, with an address for
                     (Language of the case: French)                          service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                             Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent:
                                                                             S. Laitinen), the intervener before the Court of First Instance
                                                                             being Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH, established in
In Case T-212/01: Arnaldo Lucaccioni, former official of the                 Olching (Germany), represented by S.N. Schneller, lawyer:
Commission of the European Communities, residing in St-                      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of
Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom), represented by J. R. Iturria-               Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
gagoitia Bassas, lawyer, against Commission of the European                  (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2001 (Case R
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and J.-L. Fagnart) - application             273/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 16 Nov-                   composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
ember 2000 suspending the procedure to examine a request                     A.W.H. Meij, Judges: J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Regis-
to recognise an aggravation of his occupational illness and                  trar, has given a judgment on 5 March 2003, in which it:
refusal to take action on that request and a claim for damages -
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
B. Vesterdorf, President, N. J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;                1.     Dismisses the application;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 26 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                             2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
1.     annuls the decision of the Commission, notified to the applicant
       by letter of 16 November 2000, to suspend the procedure               (1 ) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.
       provided for by Article 22 of the Insurance Rules and not to act
       on the applicant’s request seeking the recognition of the
       aggravation of his occupational illness;


title: Case T-422/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Trafilerie Meridionali v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single, complex and continuous infringement — Proportionality — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Trafilerie Meridionali v Commission
   (Case T-422/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single, complex and continuous infringement - Proportionality - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 302/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Trafilerie Meridionali SpA, formerly Emme Holding SpA (Pescara, Italy) (represented by: G. Visconti, E. Vassallo di Castiglione, M. Siragusa, M. Beretta and P. Ferrari, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by B. Gencarelli and V. Bottka, then by V. Bottka and R. Striani and lastly by V. Bottka and G. Conte, Agents, and P. Manzini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(17) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, in so far as the Commission found that Trafilerie Meridionali SpA, formerly Emme Holding SpA, had participated in the pan-European aspect of the infringement at issue from 4 March 1997 to 9 October 2000, considered that that participation related to 3-wire strand from 4 March 1997 to 28 February 2000, and found that that participation in the anti-competitive practices was for the period from 30 August 2001 to 10 June 2002;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(17) of Decision C(2010) 4387 final, as amended by Decision C(2010) 6676 final and by Decision C(2011) 2269 final;

               3.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Trame at EUR 3,2 million;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs as regards Case T-422/10;

               6.

               Orders Trafilerie Meridionali to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission as regards Case T-422/10 R.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-597/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/59

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council
   (Case T-597/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/78)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case T-286/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/19

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission
   (Case T-286/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik GmbH (Brensbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-339/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann
   (Case C-339/14)
   2014/C 372/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Andreas Wittmann

      Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg

      Question referred

   Must Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as meaning that a situation where a driving licence has not been withdrawn from the driver of a vehicle only because his driving licence was withdrawn from him previously and he therefore no longer has a driving licence, and where, at the same time, an order is made to the effect that that person is not in any event to be issued with a new driving licence for a given period of time, is equivalent to the withdrawal of a driving licence?

      (1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences; OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.


title: Joined Cases C-267/10 and C-268/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium)) — André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10) v Etat Belge — SPF Finances (Article 6(1) TEU — Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Possession and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco — National legislation authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products — Court manifestly incompetent)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/10

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium)) — André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10) v Etat Belge — SPF Finances
   (Joined Cases C-267/10 and C-268/10) (1)

   (Article 6(1) TEU - Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Possession and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco - National legislation authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products - Court manifestly incompetent)
   2011/C 232/17
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: André Rossius (C-267/10), Marc Collard (C-268/10)

      Defendant: Etat Belge — SPF Finances

      In the presence of: Etat Belge — Service public federal Défense

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Namur — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6(1) TEU and of Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Whether national legislation permitting the production, import, promotion and sale of manufactured smoking tobacco, recognised to be seriously harmful, is compatible with the object of protecting human health — Whether the provisions of national law authorising the levying of excise duty on tobacco products are valid in the light of the [EU] rules cited

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union is manifestly incompetent to reply to the questions asked by the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) by decisions of 24 March 2010.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.08.2010.