title: Case T-361/17: Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and others v Commission

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/13

         Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and others v Commission
   (Case T-361/17)
   (2017/C 318/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd (Matlock, United Kingdom), Berzelius Metall GmbH (Braubach, Germany) and Société Traitements Chimiques des Métaux (STCM) (Bazoches-les-Gallerandes, France) (represented by: M. Brealey, QC, I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final as amended on 6 April 2017 by Decision C(2017)2223 final of 6 April 2017, in Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling and reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant to take into account a representative value of purchases during the infringement period and the correct duration of the applicant’s participation in the infringement’s manifestations in France, and remove the 10 % increment based on the application of Point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (1); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration and the applicant’s rights of defence by identifying the applicant’s value of purchases to be used as a basis for the fine calculation for the first time in the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality by using the applicant’s value of purchases in 2011 as reference in the calculation of the fine.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of personal responsibility, equal treatment and proportionality and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the applicant’s more limited involvement in the cartel’s manifestations in France.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the duty to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by failing to adequately justify the application of Point 37 of the Guidelines and the exact fine increase applied.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by treating purchase cartels different from sales cartels.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence by applying a fine increase pursuant to Point 37 of the Guidelines without referencing it in the Statement of Objections and failing to issue a supplementary Statement of Objections and organise a new hearing.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration by not expressing its intention to apply Point 37 of the Guidelines at an earlier stage of the administrative procedure.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-102/12: Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Sorouh v Council

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/31

         Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Sorouh v Council
   (Case T-102/12)
   2012/C 151/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sorouh Joint Stock Company (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (2)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.


title: Case C-444/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov (Romania) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Brașov

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov (Romania) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Brașov
   (Case C-444/13)
   2013/C 325/24
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Brașov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Brașov

      Question referred

   Where the parties agree a firm and final price in a sales contract and subsequently the tax authorities consider the transaction to be taxable as a result of the reclassification of the vendor as a taxable person, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the price is deemed to include the appropriate value added tax or that value added tax is to be added to that price? In other words, what is the taxable amount for such a transaction?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case F-70/11: Action brought on 21 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/52

         Action brought on 21 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-70/11)
   2011/C 282/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.

      Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               Annul the applicant’s appraisal report for 2008, that is to say, the part of the report drawn up by EUROSTAT for that period;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


10.5.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-26/02 (1)
—     Irregularity of the proceedings                                                           (2003/C 112/40)
      The Court of First Instances misinterpreted the case as
      presented by the applicant, making no mention in its             By order of 26 February 2003 the President of the Court of
      judgment of the evidence led by it and reflected in the          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Report for the Hearing. Furthermore, the judgment is also        from the register of Case C-26/02: Kingdom of Spain v Council
      misleading as to the course of the hearing before the            of the European Communities.
      Court of First Instance.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
—     Breach of Community law
      The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that
      Article 125 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June
      1986 on the association of the overseas countries and
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-254/02 ( 1)
      territories with the European Economic Community does
      not include agricultural projects among those capable of
                                                                                (2003/C 112/41)
      being financed by Community funding. The Court of First
      Instance ignored the evidence put forward in that respect
      by the applicant.
                                                                       By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Court of
      Moreover, the Court of First Instance infringed the              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rights of the              from the register of Case C-254/02 (Reference for a preliminary
      defence by misinterpreting the complaints put forward            ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal
      by the applicant.                                                Centre): Fast Forward Resources plc v Commissioners of
                                                                       Customs and Excise.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-264/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — Protection and management of water — Failure to undertake the analyses and reviews required — Failure to submit the summary reports required)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-264/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Protection and management of water - Failure to undertake the analyses and reviews required - Failure to submit the summary reports required)
   (2008/C 79/16)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Failure to submit summary reports of the analyses required under Article 5 as regards certain river basin districts — Failure to undertake the analyses and reviews required by Article 5(1) of the Directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing ensure that, for each river basin district or for the portion of an international river basin district falling within its territory, an analysis of its characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and an economic analysis of water use, are undertaken according to the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the Directive and, by failing to submit summary reports of the analyses required by that provision, it has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2) of the Directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-44/12: Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session in Scotland — United Kingdom) — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session in Scotland — United Kingdom) — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt
   (Case C-44/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/43
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-220/10: Action brought on 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/14

         Action brought on 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-220/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/22
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that:

                           —

                           by identifying as less sensitive areas all the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira and all the coastal waters of the Island of Porto Santo without applying the criteria laid down in Annex II to Directive 91/271/EEC, (1) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of that directive, and, in particular, without carrying out comprehensive studies indicating that the respective discharges do not adversely affect the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by subjecting to treatment less stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, such as the agglomerations of Funchal and Câmara de Lobos, discharged into the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira, without carrying out comprehensive studies indicating that those discharges do not adversely affect the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Albufeira/Armação de Pêra, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3 and treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Beja, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Chaves, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to five agglomerations along the estuary of the River Tagus, Barreiro/Moita, Fernão Ferro, Montijo, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3; by failing to ensure, in six agglomerations discharging on the left bank of the Tagus estuary, Barreiro/Moita, Corroios/Quinta da Bomba, Fernão Ferro, Montijo, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Elvas, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Tavira, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomeration of Viseu, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3 and treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4, in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   There are several agglomerations that do not meet the requirements of the Directive, seven in respect of the requirements under Article 3 and 12 in respect of those under Article 5.
   Some of the agglomerations in question undertake no treatment whatsoever of their waste water.
   So far as discharges of urban waste water in sensitive areas are concerned, the Directive requires treatment of waste water more stringent than that required in respect of water discharged in other areas.
   In accordance with Part B of Annex II, a marine water body or area may be identified as a less sensitive area if the discharge of waste water does not adversely affect the environment as a result of morphology, hydrology or specific hydraulic conditions in that area.
   Article 6(2) of the Directive lays down the conditions on which urban waste water discharged into less sensitive areas may be subject to less stringent treatment. In particular, it provides that urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 10 000 and 15 000 discharged into coastal waters may be subjected to less stringent treatment only if comprehensive studies have been carried out and indicate that such discharges will not adversely affect the environment and if the Commission has been provided with the relevant information concerning those studies.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).


title: Case T-394/07: Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Algodonera del Sur v Council and Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/42

         Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Algodonera del Sur v Council and Commission
   (Case T-394/07)
   (2007/C 315/79)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Algodonera del Sur, S.A. (Lebrija, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of one million twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and twenty-five euros (EUR 1 029 825); and

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case C-351/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Plzni (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 July 2012 — Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, o.s. (OSA) v Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně, a.s.

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Plzni (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 July 2012 — Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, o.s. (OSA) v Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně, a.s.
   (Case C-351/12)
   2012/C 295/38
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Plzni

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, o.s. (OSA)

      Defendant: Léčebné lázně Mariánské Lázně, a.s.

      Questions referred

               1.

                  Must Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
                   (1)
                  be interpreted as meaning that an exception disallowing remuneration to authors for the communication of their work by television or radio transmission by means of television or radio receivers to patients in rooms in a spa establishment which is a business is contrary to Articles 3 and 5 (Article 5(2)(e), (3)(b) and (5))?

               2.

                  Is the content of those provisions of the directive concerning the above use of a work unconditional enough and sufficiently precise for copyright collecting societies to be able to rely on them before the national courts in a dispute between individuals, if the State has not transposed the directive correctly in national law?

               3.

                  Must Article 56 et seq. and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (or as the case may be Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market
                   (2)
                  ) be interpreted as precluding the application of rules of national law which reserve the exercise of collective management of copyright in the territory of the State to only a single (monopoly) copyright collecting society and thereby do not allow recipients of services a free choice of a collecting society from another State of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ L 167, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 376, p. 36.


title: Case T-102/07: Action brought on 5 April 2007 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Action brought on 5 April 2007 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-102/07)
   (2007/C 129/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2007) 130 final of 24 January 2007 relating to State aid No C 38/2005 (formerly NN 52/2004) from Germany to the Biria Group in so far as it relates to what the decision terms measures 2 and 3, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2007) 130 final of 24 January 2007 in which the Commission held that the three measures comprising State aid from Germany for the benefit of Bike Systems GmbH & Co., Thüringer Zweiradwerk KG, Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (now Biria AG) is incompatible with the common market.
   The applicant claims that it is directly and individually concerned by the Commission's decision, because measures 2 and 3, which relate to guarantees in favour of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (now Biria AG), were granted by it from its own resources on the basis of the guarantee guidelines of the Freistaat Sachsen.
   In support of its claim, the applicant claims, first, that there was an infringement of Community law by reason of an incorrect interpretation of an approved aid measure. In that regard, the applicant claims that the defendant misconstrued the corresponding definition in the approved aid measure so as to treat the undertakings concerned as undertakings in financial difficulties. Since, in the applicant's opinion, that was not the case, measures 2 and 3 relate to approved aid.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the defendant wrongly assessed the factual position in proceeding on the basis that the undertakings concerned were undertakings in financial difficulties.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges that the contested decision fails to state adequate reasons.


title: Case C-344/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification of goods — Amino acid mixes used for the preparation of foodstuffs for infants and young children allergic to cow’s milk proteins — Classification under tariff headings 2106 ‘food preparations’ or 3003 ‘medicinal products’)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-344/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification of goods - Amino acid mixes used for the preparation of foodstuffs for infants and young children allergic to cow’s milk proteins - Classification under tariff headings 2106 ‘food preparations’ or 3003 ‘medicinal products’))
   (2015/C 371/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that amino acid mixes, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are used in the preparation of foodstuffs for infants and young children who are allergic to cow’s milk proteins, must be classified under heading 2106 of that nomenclature as ‘food preparations’ since, because of their objective characteristics and properties, those goods do not have clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics, with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human organism and, accordingly, are not capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments and also are not naturally intended for medical use, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-110/06: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-110/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/57)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-244/00: Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Coillte Teoranta against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/25
Rue, against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton                 In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
and G. Ramos Ruano) and European Parliament (Agents:
M. Gómez Leal and F. de Wachter) — application for an order                 —    breach of the principle of audi alteram partem, as laid
suspending the operation of the notice of competition intended                    down in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
to establish a shortlist as a recruitment reserve for Spanish-                    No 1116/88 of 20 April 1988 laying down detailed rules
language administrators (EUR/A/159/2000) and for Spanish-                         for the application of decisions granting aid for projects
language assistant administrators (PE/90/A), published in the                     concerning Community measures to improve and adapt
Official Journal of the European Communites on 10 June 2000                       structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and in
(OJ C 162 A) — the President of the Court of First Instance                       structural works in coastal waters (2), and of the right of
made an order on 12 October 2000, the operative part of                           access to Commission documents
which is as follows:
                                                                             —    breach of the obligation to state reasons
1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                             —    infringement of Articles 44(1) and 47 and Part II.B of
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                        Regulation No (EEC) 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                                Community measures to improve and adapt structures in
                                                                                the fisheries and aquaculture sector (3), inasmuch as it
                                                                                lacks a legal basis for describing changes to the project in
                                                                                question as ‘substantial changes’.
                                                                             (1) OJ 1996 C 77, p. 11.
                                                                             (2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.
                                                                             (3) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’ S.r.l.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-241/00)
                           (2000/C 355/56)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Coillte Teoran-
European Communities on 14 September 2000 by ‘Le Canne’                      ta against the Commission of the European Communities
S.r.l., represented by Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Maz-
zonetto, of the Padua Bar, and Guy Arendt of the Luxembourg                                           (Case T-244/00)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val St Croix.
                                                                                (2000/C 355/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—      annul Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July
       2000;
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the Commission to make good the damage;                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Coillte
                                                                             Teoranta, represented by Guy French, of McCann FitzGerald,
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.             Dublin (Ireland) and Paul Gallagher and Niamh Hyland.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             —    annul that part of Commission Decision of 5 July 2000
By the present action, the applicant, who also brought the                        excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
action in Case T-218/95 Le Canne v Commission (1), contests                       incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Commission decision C (2000) 1754 of 11 July 2000 reducing                        Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
the contribution originally granted by Decision C (90) 1923/99                    Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to the extent that the decision
of 30 October 1990 in respect of the ‘the modernisation and                       excludes expenditure incurred by Ireland of 4,8 million
development of a breeding area at Rosalina (Veneto)’ project.                     Euros in respect of ineligible afforestation aid; and
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the application.           —     The Commission infringed the principle of the protection
                                                                                of legitimate expectations in seeking to recover premium
                                                                                payments in circumstances where it has accepted that the
                                                                                applicant came into the terms of Article 2(2)(b) and it has
                                                                                altered its position on foot of the Commission’s actions.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92, of 30 June 1992, institut-
                                                                              ing a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture
                                                                              (OJ L 215, of 30 July 1992, p. 96).
                                                                          (2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Counil, of 21 April 1970, on
According to the applicant, the contested decision in the                     the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English
present case, which relates to a Programme for Afforestation                  Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).
partially financed by the European Community, has the effect
of
—     preventing the State from paying the EU premiums
      provided for under Regulation No 2080/92 (1) that were
      suspended by the State from 22 November 1999. As a
      result, the State will pay no EU premiums to which the              Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Abibes and
      applicant would otherwise be entitled from 1 September              Others against Commission of the European Communities
      2000.
                                                                                (Cases T-245/00, T-246/00 and T-248/00)
—     excluding the applicant from the category of persons
      entitled to loss of income premiums pursuant to                                               (2000/C 355/58)
      Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation No 2080/92.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In support of its claims, the applicant makes the following               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
submissions:                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Abibes
                                                                          and Others, represented by Andrea Bortoluzzi and Chiara
                                                                          Montagner, of the Venice Bar.
—     The contested decision is void since it is based on
      Regulation No 729/70 (2) which, at the date on which the
      decision was taken, had been repealed;                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
—     The Commission misinterpreted the provisions of Regu-
      lation No 2080/92 in excluding the applicant from the               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      provisions of Article 2(2)(b); it is stressed on this point
      that, since the applicant is a ‘private-law legal person’, the
      concept of ‘public entity’ relied upon by the Commission            Pleas in law and main arguments
      has no basis in law:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
                                                                          Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
—     The contested decision infringes Articles 253 and 295 of            Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
      the Treaty;
                                                                          The applicants claim in particular that there has been a
                                                                          manifest error of assessment of the facts, as well as of
—     The Commission infringed the principles of legal cer-               procedure, in so far as the relief from contributions in question
      tainty, inasmuch as it was under a duty to inform Ireland           are characterised as aid. The applicants also allege infringement
      of any doubts it had concerning eligibility, which it failed        of Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.
      to do; in fact, no objection was taken to Ireland’s
      programme to the extent that it expected that private
      companies, including the applicant, would be bodies                 (1) Not yet published.
      eligible for loss-of-income premiums and on 27 April
      1994, the Commission approved Ireland’s afforestation
      programme.


title: Case T-457/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 June 2014 by Thierry Rouffaud against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 April 2014 in Case F-59/13, Rouffaud v EEAS

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/44

         Appeal brought on 18 June 2014 by Thierry Rouffaud against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 April 2014 in Case F-59/13, Rouffaud v EEAS

   (Case T-457/14 P)
   2014/C 261/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Thierry Rouffaud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 in Case F-59/13 Rouffaud v European External Action Service;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to draw the attention of the parties to the question of the admissibility of the application until just before the final act of long proceedings, making it impossible for the applicant to prepare adequate arguments.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law as regards the application of the rule on consistency, in so far as the subject-matter and the cause are perfectly identical as between the claim and the action for annulment.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the evidence and of the facts, in so far as the CST included in its judgment only a limited part of the applicant’s pleadings, which does not reflect the true situation after the closure of the written procedure.


title: Case T-204/11: Action brought on 4 April 2011 — Spain v Commission

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/26

         Action brought on 4 April 2011 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-204/11)
   2011/C 160/41
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 15/2011 of 10 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards recognised testing methods for detecting marine biotoxins in live bivalve molluscs, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the contested regulation the Commission decided to impose the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method as the reference method for the detection of marine lipophilic toxins, replacing the mouse bioassay method.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 168 TFEU and the principle of proportionality which should govern the adoption of decisions by the institutions of the European Union.

                           —

                           It is stated in this regard that the new reference method established for the detection of lipophilic toxins is no more beneficial for the protection of public health than mouse bioassay.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           It is stated in this regard that by adopting the decision to replace mouse bioassay with LC-MS/MS as the reference method for the detection of lipophilic toxins, the Commission did not assess all the relevant facts and circumstances of the situation that it intended to regulate, in that it failed to take into consideration the economic impact that such a change would have on the productive sector concerned.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           According to the applicant State, the producers of live bivalve molluscs were entitled to expect that the Commission would not decide to replace mouse bioassay as the reference method for the detection of lipophilic toxins until the conditions set out in point 4 of Part B of Chapter III of Annex III to Regulation No 2074/2005, in its original wording, had been fulfilled.


title: Case T-81/10: Action brought on 24 February 2010 — Tempus Vade v OHIM — Palacios Serrano (AIR FORCE)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/64

         Action brought on 24 February 2010 — Tempus Vade v OHIM — Palacios Serrano (AIR FORCE)
   (Case T-81/10)
   2010/C 100/95
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Tempus Vade, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, 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: Palacios Serrano (Alcobendas, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the decision of 7 January 2010 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 944/2006-1 does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 May 2008, made in opposition proceedings No B 1009607 and, accordingly, registers Community trade mark No 5 016 704 AIR FORCE in respect of goods in Class 14.

               —

               Declare that registration of the Community trade mark No 5 016 704 AIR FORCE is refused pursuant to the prohibition on registration provided for in Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Juan Palacios Serrano.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AIR FORCE’ (application No 5 016 704) in respect of goods in Class 14.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tempus Vade, S.L.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘TIME FORCE’ (application No 395 657) in respect of goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25; and four other Community figurative marks which contain the word element ‘TIME FORCE’: application No 398 776 in respect of goods in Class 14, 18 and 25; application No 3 112 133 in respect of goods in Classes 3, 8, 9, 14, 18, 25, 34, 35 and 37, and applications Nos 1 998 375 and 2 553 667 in respect of goods in Class 14.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Kelvin William Stephens against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-137/97)

text:
No C 228/ 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Kelvin William                        — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
Stephens against the Commission of the European                              decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                              Communities                                    rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                          ( Case T-137/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/41 )                             — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997                    Case T-16/97 ( x ).
by Kelvin William Stephens, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an              (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 1996                        Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Marc Blijweert and
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                      others against the Commission of the European
     consideration to the possible application of                                                    Communities
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                                ( Case T-139/97 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                                            ( 97/C 228/43 )
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
                                                                         by Marc Blijweert, residing at Sint Pietersleeuw ( Belgium ),
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Manuel Carvalhosa, residing in Brussels, Rita Lehmann,
Case T-16/97 H.                                                          residing in Moscow, Annette Mills, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         Glenys Nichol, residing in Brussels, Jeffery Piper, residing
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                    at Sint Stevens-Woluwe ( Belgium ), Francisco Sentieiro,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, and Guy Thiry, residing at Maleves
                                                                         ( Berlgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the
                                                                         Liege Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Carla Rinaldin
                                                                         The applicants claims that the Court should :
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-138/97)
                              ( 97/C 228/42 )
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
                                                                              to be regraded,
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
An action against the Commission of the European                              administrative complaint,
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
 by Carla Rinaldin, residing at Corgeno di Vergiate (Italy),             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                          Case T-16/97 (').
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                       O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 1997 in Case C-164/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ldª v. Alfândega de Lisboa (Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de 2ª Instância) (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Grated cheese)

text:
No C 252/6            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16 . 8 . 97
     social welfare system by concluding contracts which              (EEC) No 2658/87, must be interpreted as including
     entitle them to be reimbursed by the public authorities          grated cheese which, when imported, is, by reason of the
     for the costs of providing social welfare services of a          method of packaging and preservation used, in an
     health-care nature.                                              agglomerated form and, after unpacking and exposure to
                                                                      the surrounding air, breaks down into irregular granules.
O OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      H OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Fourth Chamber)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 17 June 1997                                                     (First Chamber)
in Case C-164/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                                    of 17 June 1997
by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fábrica de                  in Case C-105/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld® v. Alfândega de Lisboa                      by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Codiesel —
       (Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de 23. Instância) (')              Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ld? v. Conselho
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification —                      Técnico Aduaneiro; also represented: Ministério
                          Grated cheese)                                                         Público H
                          ( 97/C 252/ 10 )                            (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Electrical
                                                                      apparatus constituting an 'uninterruptible power supply'
                                                                      — Classification in the nomenclature of the Common
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                             Customs Tariff)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/ 11 )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C- 164/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( Supreme Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling                       published in the European Court Reports)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fabrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld? and Alfandega de
Lisboa ( Tribunal Tecnico Aduaneiro de 2*. Instancia )                In Case C-105/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Lisbon Customs Authority ( Specialized Customs Court of             of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
Second Instance )) — on the interpretation of subheadings             ( Supreme Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling
0406 20 90 and 0406 90 11 of Council Regulation ( EEC )               in the proceedings pending before that court between
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical              Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio Tecnico a Industria Ld?
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No                 and Conselho Tecnico Aduaneiro ( Customs Examination
L 256 , 7. 9 . 1987, p. 1 ), as amended by Commission                 Board ); also represented: Ministerio Publico — on the
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988                    interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 950/68 of
amending Annex I to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 ( OJ                28 June 1968 on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ,
No L 298 , 31 . 10 . 1988 , p. 1 ) and by Commission                  English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 275 ), as amended by
Regulation ( EEC ) No 316/91 of 7 February 1991                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331 /85 of 5 December
concerning the classification of certain goods in the                  1985 ( OJ No L 331 , 9 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( First
combined nomenclature ( OJ No L 37, 9 . 2 . 1991 , p. 25 )            Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the
— the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: J. L.                    Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur) and P. Jann,
Murray, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1997, the
Advocate-General : H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for             operative part of which is as follows:
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1997, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of 28 June 1968 on
                                                                       the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council
Subheading 0406 20 90 of Council Regulation (EEC)                      Regulation (EEC) No 3331 /85 of 5 December 1985, must
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical               be interpreted as meaning that an electrical apparatus
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as                      which is an 'uninterruptible power supply ' consisting, on
amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88                      the one hand, of a cabinet containing a rectifier/charger,
 of 21 September 1988 amending Annex I to Regulation                  an inverter and a static bypass switch and, on the other, of


10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 7/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case T-131/02 (1)
—     annul the implied decision which the appointing auth-                                        (2004/C 7/80)
      ority might be deemed to have taken, rejecting the
      complaint made by the applicant on 29 October 2002,
      by which it requested the annulment of a decision dated                               (Language of the Case: English)
      6 August 2002, refusing to grant a request for assistance
      and compensation made on 24 January 2002 on the basis
      of Article 24 and Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;           By order of 2 October 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     so far as necessary also annul that decision of 6 August            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-131/02:
      2002, against which the complaint of 29 October 2002                Travelex Global and Financial Services Limited and Interpay-
      was made;                                                           ment Services Limited v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities.
—     order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 50 000,
      without prejudice to subsequent increase, reduction or
      alteration;                                                         (1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs and the expenses
      necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings,
      inter alia, accommodation, travel and subsistence
      expenses, and lawyers fees.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-159/02 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 7/81)
The applicant made a request for assistance to the Commission
seeking the opening of an investigation and payment of                                      (Language of the Case: English)
compensation following psychological harassment to which
he was allegedly subjected in Eurostat.
                                                                          By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
In support of his application, the applicant alleges a manifest           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
error of assessment in the decision rejecting his request, a              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the             T-159/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European
duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and, finally, a          Communities.
breach of the principle of equal treatment and the right to
reasonable career expectations.                                           (1) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case T-68/02 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 7/79)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/82)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Fourth
T-68/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-162/03: Pascal Millot v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.06.2002.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.


title: Case T-202/03: Action brought on 2 June 2003 by Alecansan, S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 184/52               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                             2.8.2003
giving it the opportunity to be heard, contrary to the rights of             Community       trade    mark     Figurative trade mark ‘COMP
defence and the principle of sound administration. As to                     sought:                           USA’      —     Application    no
substance, the applicant alleges, first misapplication of                                                      2 133 202 for goods in
Article 93(c) and (f) of Regulation No 1605/03 and, secondly,                                                  Classes 9 and 37 (items related
infringement of Article 96 of that regulation and of the                                                       to computers)
principle of proportionality in determining the level of sanc-
tions. The applicant further alleges a defective statement of
reasons in respect of the latter claims.
                                                                             Proprietor of mark or sign        The applicant
The applicant thus seeks compensation for the damage caused                  cited in the opposition pro-
by the sanctions unlawfully imposed by the contested decision;               ceedings:
such damage is not only economic in nature but is also
detrimental to the image and reputation of the company.
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002            Mark or sign cited in op-         The figurative English trade
    on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the      position:                         mark ‘COMP USA’ for goods in
    European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).                                                                Class 39 (transport)
                                                                             Decision of the Opposition        Rejection of the opposition
                                                                             Division:
Action brought on 2 June 2003 by Alecansan, S.L. against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
              (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                               Decision of the Board of          Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                             Appeal:
                          (Case T-202/03)
                         (2003/C 184/109)
                                                                             Pleas in law:                     Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (likelihood of confusion)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 June 2003 by Alecansan, S.L., with its registered office in
                                                                             Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Nicolas Georgio-
Madrid, represented by María Baylos Morales, Pedro Merino
                                                                             poulos and Others against the Commission of the
Baylos and Jesús Arribas García, lawyers at the Madrid Bar.
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                            (Case T-205/03)
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM                                         (2003/C 184/110)
      of 24 March 2003 in Case R 711/2002-1;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of OHIM's Opposition Division of
      17 June 2002;
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
—     declare the mark claimed and the applicant's trade mark                nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      with priority incompatible pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of              European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Nicolas Georgio-
      Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark;                       poulos, residing in Brussels, and 4 other officials, represented
                                                                             by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for
—     refuse registration of the Community trade mark ‘COMP                  service in Luxembourg.
      USA’, no 849 497, for Classes 9 and 37; and
                                                                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the defendant, and the intervener if he intervenes in            —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      the action for annulment, to pay the costs.                                  changing, with effect from a year not further specified
                                                                                (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
                                                                                during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
                                                                                respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
Applicant for Community           CompUSA Management Com-                          eration for destinations in the Pelopponese;
trade mark:                       pany                                             or, in the alternative,


title: Case C-330/02: Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 274/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                   1.    Must the answer given by the Court to question 4 in its
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                     judgment of 27 November 2001 in Case C-257/99
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            Barkoci and Malik be interpreted to mean that it is
                                                                               incompatible with Article 45(1) in conjunction with
                                                                               Article 59(1) of the Association Agreement with Bulgaria,
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                         Article 44(3) in conjunction with Article 58 of the
                                                                               Association Agreement with Poland and Article 45(3) in
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  conjunction with Article 59 of the Association Agreement
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   with the Slovak Republic for the competent authority,
      Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on                     when assessing an application submitted in the Nether-
      the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds                lands for a full residence permit with a view to establish-
      due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and             ment in accordance with the Association Agreement, to
      installations or, in any event, by failing to communicate                refrain from examining the contents of the application
      such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of                        solely on the ground that the applicant does not have a
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                    temporary residence permit? Does the fact that the
      directive;                                                               substantive entry requirements are clearly and manifestly
                                                                               satisfied make any difference to the answer to this
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             question?
                                                                         2.    Is it relevant for the purposes of answering the first
                                                                               question, and if so how, whether the person applying for
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               a full residence permit is legally resident in the Nether-
                                                                               lands at the time of the application, whether or not on
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC                    the basis of an entitlement other than a temporary
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member                   residence permit, such as the ‘free period’ referred to in
States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the                        Article 8 of the Vreemdelingenwet?
directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
1 April 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te                                            (Case C-330/02)
s’-Gravenhage by decision of that Court of 16 September
2002 in the case of Lili Georgieva Panayotova, Radostina
Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata Lis, Lubica Sopo-                                           (2002/C 274/35)
va, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika Rusiecka
 against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie
                         (Case C-327/02)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                         (2002/C 274/34)                                 Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the Rechtbank te
s’-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) of 16 September                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2002, received at the Court Registry on 18 September
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lili Georgieva
Panayotova, Radostina Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata              —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Lis, Lubica Sopova, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Rusiecka against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Inte-                     Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
gratie (Minister for Alien Affairs and Integration) on the                     the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
following questions:                                                           due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 274/21
      installations or, in any event, by failing to notify such         Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 15 of this Directive;
                                                                        The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   measures in order to comply with the directive for the entirety
                                                                        of its territory is not disputed.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
                                                                        of the provisions adopted and brought into force to comply
                                                                        with the directive concerned for Gibraltar and since the
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to          Commission is in possession of no other information enabling
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by           it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted and
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the           brought into force the necessary provisions, it is compelled to
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period           assume that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such
expired on 1 April 2001 without Ireland havthe conclusions              provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the
of the Commission.ing enacted the provisions necessary to               directive.
comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.
Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-                         Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United                  mission of the European Communities against the United
                               Kingdom                                                               Kingdom
                         (Case C-331/02)                                                          (Case C-332/02)
                         (2002/C 274/36)                                                          (2002/C 274/37)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Septem-
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                        represented by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt and bring into force
      for Gibraltar the laws, regulations and administrative            1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      1999/30/EC ( 1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values               Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
      for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of                     limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
      nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air or, in             due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
      any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the                  installations or, in any event, by failing to notify such
      Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                     provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of
      Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil fully its obligations             Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil fully
      under this Directive.                                                   its obligations under Article 15 of this Directive;
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                        2)    order the United Kingdom to the pay the costs.


title: Case T-486/12: Action brought on 3 November 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Pentafarma (METABOL)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/42

         Action brought on 3 November 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Pentafarma (METABOL)
   (Case T-486/12)
   2013/C 9/75
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N.Trovas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pentafarma-Sociedade Tecnico-Medicinal, SA (Prior Velho, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2012 in Case R 1901/2011-1;

               —

               reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

               —

               order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘METABOL’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885287

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pentafarma-Sociedade Tecnico-Medicinal, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Portuguese word mark ‘METABOL-MG’ which has been registered under No 241841, for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part

      Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 8(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-451/16: Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Papa)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/26

      Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Papa)
      (Case T-451/16)
      (2016/C 364/28)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Bester Papa’ — Application for registration No 14 169 213

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 94/2016-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Joined Cases T-135/06 to T-138/06: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — Al-Faqih v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Combating terrorism — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — Al-Faqih v Council
   (Joined Cases T-135/06 to T-138/06) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Combating terrorism - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds - Fundamental rights - Right to respect for property, right to be heard and right to effective judicial review)
   2010/C 328/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih (Birmingham, United Kingdom); Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (Birmingham); Ghunia Abdrabbah (Birmingham); and Taher Nasuf (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented initially by: N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister and subsequently by N. Garcia-Lora and E. Grieves, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: P.J. Kuijper and subsequently by C. O’Reilly and J. Aquilina, and subsequently by E. Paasivirta and P. Aalto, and finally by E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, Agents); and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Gibbs, Z. Bryanston-Cross and S. Ossowski, Agents, assisted by A. Dashwood, Barrister)
   interveners,

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda network and the Taliban and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2001 L 139, p. 9), as amended for the sixty-third time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 of 10 February 2006 (OJ 2006 L 40, p. 13), which added the applicants’ names to Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-135/06 to T-138/06 for the purposes of judgment.

               2.

               Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda network and the Taliban and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, and amending for the sixty third time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 of 10 February 2006 in so far as it concerns the applicants Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Taher Nasuf, Ghunia Abdrabbah, and Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd.

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicants, and the sums advanced by way of legal aid by the cashier of the General Court.

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case T-280/09: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament (Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action on the petition — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/61

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Morte Navarro v Parliament
   (Case T-280/09) (1)

   (Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action on the petition - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)
   2013/C 225/137
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Carlos Morte Navarro (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. González Buitrón, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Gorlitz and P. López-Carceller, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 5 May 2009 to take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on 17 December 2008 (petition No 1818/2008).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr José Carlos Morte Navarro to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-141/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Michail Peros v Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados (Directive 89/48/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Mechanical engineer)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-141/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Michail Peros v Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados (1)

   (Directive 89/48/EEC - Workers - Recognition of diplomas - Mechanical engineer)
   (2005/C 217/34)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-141/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece), made by decision of 30 December 2003, received at the Court on 17 March 2004, in the proceedings between Michail Peros and Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   Where national measures transposing Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, in the version in force until 31 July 2001, have not been adopted within the period prescribed in Article 12 thereof, a national of a Member State may rely on Article 3(a) of that directive in order to obtain, in the host Member State, authorisation to pursue a regulated profession such as that of mechanical engineer.
   That possibility may not be made dependent on recognition of the qualifications of the person concerned by the competent national authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case F-16/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2008 — Dragoman v Commission (Staff case — Competition — Selection Board — Principle of impartiality of the Selection Board — Article 11a of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment of internal and external candidates — Exclusion of a candidate — Duty to state reasons — Scope — Respect for the secrecy of the deliberations of the selection board)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2008 — Dragoman v Commission
   (Case F-16/07)
   (Staff case - Competition - Selection Board - Principle of impartiality of the Selection Board - Article 11a of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment of internal and external candidates - Exclusion of a candidate - Duty to state reasons - Scope - Respect for the secrecy of the deliberations of the selection board)
   (2008/C 158/40)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Adriana Dragoman (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G.-F. Dinulescu, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann, F. Telea and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decisions of the selection board of competition EPSO/AD/34/05 (for the constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of Romanian-speaking conference interpreters) to award the applicant a mark for the first interpreting test which did not permit her to be admitted to the subsequent tests of that competition — Plea of illegality in respect of Article 6 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.