title: Case T-43/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014  — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Period for bringing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Locus standi — Burden of proof — Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2014 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
   (Case T-43/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Period for bringing proceedings - Partial inadmissibility - Locus standi - Burden of proof - Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment))
   (2015/C 007/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamad Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: M. Ponsard, D. Amaudruz and A. Boesch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, then by G. Étienne, S. Kyriakopoulou and B. Driessen and last by G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11), Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1), Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 91), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 45), Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of 23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 164, p. 14), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 611/2011 of 23 June 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 164, p. 1), Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ L 199, p. 74), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 of 1 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 33), Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ L 218, p. 20), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 3), Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33), Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November 2011 amending Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 53), Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 55), Council Regulation (EU) No 1150/2011 of 14 November 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 3), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 8), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 33), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article 33(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 6), Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 103), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 266/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 45) Council Decision 2012/206/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 110, p. 36), Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 156, p. 10), Council Decision 2012/322/CFSP of 20 June 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 45), Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 80), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 20), Council Regulation (EU) No 545/2012 of 25 June 2012 amending Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 23), Council Decision 2012/420/CFSP of 23 July 2012 amending Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 59), Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 81), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) Noo673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 196, p. 8), Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 77), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1), and Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible, because out of time, in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2011/367/CFSP of 23 June 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 611/2011 of 23 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

               2)

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 of 1 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Decision 2011/735/CFSP of 14 November 2011 amending Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Decision 2011/736/CFSP of 14 November 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, Council Regulation (EU) No 1150/2011 of 14 November 2011 amending Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011, Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2012/206/CFSP of 23 April 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 509/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2012/322/CFSP of 20 June 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2012/335/CFSP of 25 June 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 544/2012 of 25 June 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) Noo36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Regulation (EU) No 545/2012 of 25 June 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2012/420/CFSP of 23 July 2012 amending Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Decision 2012/424/CFSP of 23 July 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2012 of 23 July 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, since those acts do not concern Mr Hamcho and Hamcho International.

               3)

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the letter of the Council of the European Union dated 21 December 2011 sent to Mr Hamcho and Hamcho International.

               4)

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273, Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782, Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782, and Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739, since those acts have been repealed and replaced.

               5)

               Annuls, in so far as the following acts concern Mr Hamcho and Hamcho International:

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation No 442/2011;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 266/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

               6)

               Orders the effects of the annulled decisions and regulations to be maintained with respect to Mr Hamcho and Hamcho International, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until any dismissal of that appeal.

               7)

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Mr Hamcho and by Hamcho International.

               8)

               Orders Mr Hamcho and Hamcho International to bear two thirds of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 0f 17.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-58/99: Mukand Ltd and Others v Council of the European Union (Anti-subsidy proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 — Stainless steel bright bars — Injury — Causal link)

text:
5.1.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 3/23
3.    Annuls Article 2 of Decision 1999/580, in so far as the               1.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of 13 November
      Federal Republic of Germany is required to recover from the                 1998 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
      applicant the part of the investment grant make to the applicant            stainless steel bars originating in India and collecting definitively
      in 1995 in respect of investment in its cold wire rod drawing               the provisional duty imposed, in so far as it concerns imports
      plant and the aid element of the guarantees covering the                    into the European Community of products manufactured by
      operating loans of DEM 7.2 million and DEM 4.8 million                      Mukand Ltd, Isibars Ltd, Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd and
      granted at the end of 1994;                                                 Viraj Impoexpo Ltd;
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
5.    Orders the applicant to pay two-thirds of its costs;                  3.    The Council shall bear its own costs together with those incurred
                                                                                by the applicants. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
6.    Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one
      third of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
7.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 86, 27.3.1999
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 10 October 2001
                       of 19 September 2001
                                                                            in Case T-171/99: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-58/99: Mukand Ltd and Others v Council of the
                         European Union (1)
                                                                            (Action for damages — Recovery of undue payments —
                                                                              Harm suffered by reason of a partially annulled decision)
(Anti-subsidy proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 2450/98
    — Stainless steel bright bars — Injury — Causal link)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/37)
                            (2002/C 3/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-171/99: Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc,
In Case T-58/99: Mukand Ltd, established in Mumbai (India),                 then British Steel Ltd, established in London, represented by
Isibars Ltd, established in Mumbai, Ferro Alloys Corporation                P.G.H. Collins and M. Levitt, Solicitors, with an address for
Ltd, established in Nagpur (India), Viraj Impoexpo Ltd, estab-              service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
lished in Mumbai, represented by K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer,                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils) — application
and J. Branton, Solicitor, with an address for service in                   seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the
Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents:                  applicant through the Commission’s refusal to pay it interest
S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch), supported by                     on the amount repaid pursuant to a judgment of the Court of
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-                    First Instance reducing the level of the fine imposed on it —
schitz and N. Khan) — application for annulment of Council                  the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of 13 November 1998 imposing                     B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel              G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
bars originating in India and collecting definitively the pro-              judgment on 10 October 2001, in which it:
visional duty imposed (OJ 1998 L 304, p. 1) — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, J. Pirrung,               1.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-                     EUR 3 016 608, together with simple interest on that sum at
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September                   the fixed rate of 5.75 % per annum, for the period from
2001, in which it:                                                                24 April 1999 to the date of the present judgment;


title: Case C-513/08 P: Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Appeal — Officials — Social security — Express refusal of an application for reimbursement of 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the official — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/11

         Order of the Court of 9 December 2009 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case C-513/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Social security - Express refusal of an application for reimbursement of 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the official - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 100/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. dal Ferro, avvocato)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission, by which that Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of the decisions of the Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to give prior authorisation for 100 % of certain medical expenses incurred by the appellant and to reimburse the cost of a medical consultation in accordance with the rules applicable to consultations of medical experts, and an application that the Commission be ordered to pay certain medical expenses

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Marcuccio to pay the costs of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 32, of 07.02.2009.


title: Case T-44/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Aid for the production of skimmed-milk powder — Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrative authorities or bodies of the Member States — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of ne bis in idem — Reasonable period)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-44/11) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Aid for the production of skimmed-milk powder - Irregularities or negligence attributable to administrative authorities or bodies of the Member States - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of ne bis in idem - Reasonable period))
   (2015/C 279/34)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by L. Ventrella and G. Fiengo, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 288, p. 24), to the extent that it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-18/10: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Inuit Tapiritt Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Ban on import and sale — Exception in favour of Inuit communities — Application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Meaning of regulatory act — Absence of direct or individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/20

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Inuit Tapiritt Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-18/10) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Ban on import and sale - Exception in favour of Inuit communities - Application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ - Absence of direct or individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Inuit Tapiritt Kanatami (Ottawa, Canada); Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association (Qikiqtarjuaq, Canada); Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association (Pangnirtung, Canada); Jaypootie Moesesie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Allen Kooneeliusie (Qikiqtarjuaq); Toomasie Newkingnak (Qikiqtarjuaq); David Kuptana (Ulukhaktok, Canada); Karliin Aariak (Iqaluit, Canada); Efstathios Andreas Agathos (Athens, Greece); Canadian Seal Marketing Group (Quebec, Canada); Ta Ma Su Seal Products, Inc. (Cap-aux-Meules, Canada); Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa); NuTan Furs, Inc. (Catalina, Canada); GC Rieber Skinn AS (Bergen, Norway); Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greenland (ICC) (Nuuk, Greenland, Denmark); Johannes Egede (Nuuk); Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (Nuuk); represented initially by J. Bouckaert, M. van der Woude and H. Viaene, and subsequently by J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels, Y. de Vries, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented initially by É. White, P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, and subsequently by É. White, P. Oliver and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Jaypootie Moesesie, Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak, David Kuptana, Karliin Aariak, Efstathios Andreas Agathos, the Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products, the Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs, Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Conference Greenland (ICC), Johannes Egede and Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-5/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/50

         Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal v Commission
   (Case T-5/14)
   2014/C 52/98
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Anudal, SL (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-3/14 Anudal Industrial v Commission.


title: Case T-420/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  4 April 2006  — Vischim v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Directive 91/414/EEC — Urgency — None)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/31

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2006 — Vischim v Commission
   (Case T-420/05 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Directive 91/414/EEC - Urgency - None)
   (2006/C 143/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Vischim Srl (Cesano Maderno, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty, Agent)
   Re:
   Application (i) for suspension of Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil, chlorotuloron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl as active substances (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 51) and (ii) for the adoption of certain other interim measures
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-329/15: Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Certuss Dampfautomaten v OHIM — Universal for Engineering Industries (Universal 1800 TC)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/44

         Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Certuss Dampfautomaten v OHIM — Universal for Engineering Industries (Universal 1800 TC)
   (Case T-329/15)
   (2015/C 279/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Certuss Dampfautomaten GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Universal for Engineering Industries SAE (Giza, Egypt)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Universal 1800 TC’ — Application for registration No 10 632 503

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2015 in Case R 1303/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case F-41/14: Action brought on 6 May 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/34

         Action brought on 6 May 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-41/14)
   2014/C 235/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Christophe Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the year 2012 and of the decision to award her one merit point for the year 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested staff report, the decision on merit points and, so far as necessary, the decision on the complaint;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-606/12 and C-607/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale Genova (Italy)) — DresserRand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli (Request for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 17(2)(f) — Condition relating to the return of goods to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale Genova (Italy)) — DresserRand SA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli
   (Joined Cases C-606/12 and C-607/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 17(2)(f) - Condition relating to the return of goods to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported))
   2014/C 129/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DresserRand SA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova — Interpretation of Article 17(2)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Transfer to another Member State — ‘Work on the goods’ — Verifying the adaptability to other goods — Condition that the goods be returned to the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported — Possibility of treating the dispatch as constituting a transfer to another Member State in the case of dispatch to a Member State other than that from which they were sent

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 17(2)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for the dispatch or transport of goods not to be classified as a transfer to another Member State, those goods, after the work on them has been carried out in the Member State in which dispatch or transport of the goods ends, must necessarily be returned to the taxable person in the Member State from which they were initially dispatched or transported.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 In Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG and Others (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of wrist orthoses, lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports — Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature)

text:
C 323/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    The term ‘solely’ in Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined
                                                                                Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that the note
                                                                                does not exclude from that chapter belts and supports of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                          which characteristics other than their elasticity contribute to a
                                                                                significant extent to the intended effect on the organ to be
                                                                                supported or held.
                        of 7 November 2002
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 258 of 7.10.2000.
In Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht,
     Kassel): Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG and Others ( 1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifi-
cation in the Combined Nomenclature of wrist orthoses,
lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports —                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2002/C 323/15)
                                                                                of 14 November 2002
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              in Case C-271/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                              from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Gemeente
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           Steenbergen v Luc Baten (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Brussels Convention — Scope — Action under a right of
                                                                              recourse under national legislation providing for payment of
                                                                              allowances by way of social assistance — Concept of ‘civil
                                                                                matters’ — Concept of ‘social security’)
In Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00: Reference to the Court
under Article 234 EC by the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                           (2002/C 323/16)
before that court between Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG (C-260/
00 to C-262/00), medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
GmbH & Co. KG (C-263/00) and Oberfinanzdirektion Ko-
blenz, on the interpretation of heading 9021 of the Combined
Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Council Regulation                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical                                   in the European Court Reports)
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987
L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                 In Case C-271/00: Reference to the Court pursuant to the
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporte-                      Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
ur), S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                   Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it has                      cial Matters by the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium),
ruled:                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                              court between Gemeente Steenbergen and Luc Baten, on the
                                                                              interpretation of Article 1 of the abovementioned Convention
1.    Tariff heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained             of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
      in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of                    the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
      23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on          Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
      the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission                     Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
      Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be                 — amended version — p. 77) and by the Convention of
      interpreted as meaning that products such as wrist orthoses,            25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
      lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports fall             (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
      within that heading if they display characteristics which               of: C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber,
      distinguish them, in particular by the materials of which they          acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D. A. O. Edward,
      are made, their method of operation or their adjustability to the       A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
      patient’s specific handicaps, from ordinary belts and supports          A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
      for general use. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
      that is the case in the main proceedings.                               2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-164/04: Action brought on 10 May 2004 by Patricia Wauthier and Viviane Deveen against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/18

         Action brought on 10 May 2004 by Patricia Wauthier and Viviane Deveen against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-164/04)
   (2004/C 190/30)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2004 by Patricia Wauthier and Viviane Deveen, residing in Belgium, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the 2001-2002 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicants;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the applicants' career development reviews (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001 – 31.12.2002;

               —

               Decide as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon by the applicants in this case are the same as those relied upon by the applicants in Cases T-43/04 and T-47/04.


title: Case T-126/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — 1. FC Köln v EUIPO (SPÜRBAR ANDERS)

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/19

         Action brought on 22 March 2016 — 1. FC Köln v EUIPO (SPÜRBAR ANDERS)
   (Case T-126/16)
   (2016/C 165/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: 1. FC Köln GmbH & Co. KGaA (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and S. Stier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SPÜRBAR ANDERS’ — Application No 13 468 103

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 in Case R 718/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-118/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/18

         Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)
   (Case T-118/16)
   (2016/C 165/20)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bpost NV (Brussels, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BEPOST’ — Application No 8 897 829

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 3107/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-150/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Jean Leon Van Straaten v Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne bis in idem principle — Meaning of the same acts and of trial disposed of — Exporting in one State and importing in another State — Acquittal of the accused)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Jean Leon Van Straaten v Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië
   (Case C-150/05) (1)

   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Ne bis in idem principle - Meaning of ‘the same acts’ and of ‘trial disposed of’ - Exporting in one State and importing in another State - Acquittal of the accused)
   (2006/C 294/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jean Leon Van Straaten

      Defendants: Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Ne bis in idem principle — ‘Same acts’ and ‘trial disposed of’ — Offence prosecuted as acts of exporting in one State and as acts of importing in another — Whether a trial is finally disposed of in the case where the person charged is acquitted
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal interest protected;

                           —

                           in the case of offences relating to narcotic drugs, the quantities of the drug that are at issue in the two Contracting States concerned or the persons alleged to have been party to the acts in the two States are not required to be identical;

                           —

                           punishable acts consisting of exporting and of importing the same narcotic drugs and which are prosecuted in different Contracting States party to that Convention are, in principle, to be regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54 of the Convention, the definitive assessment in that respect being the task of the competent national courts.

               2.

               The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of that Convention, falls to be applied in respect of a decision of the judicial authorities of a Contracting State by which the accused is acquitted finally for lack of evidence.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.06.2005.


title: Case F-91/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Chatel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU’s pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years, accepted by the applicant, based on new General Implementing Provisions — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of procedure)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/43

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Chatel v Council
   (Case F-91/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU’s pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years, accepted by the applicant, based on new General Implementing Provisions - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of procedure))
   (2016/C 222/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zlata Chatel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and, finally, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 421 of 24/11/2014, p. 63.


title: Case T-78/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Baldesberger v OHIM (shape of tweezers)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/33

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Baldesberger v OHIM (shape of tweezers)
   (Case T-78/08)
   (2008/C 107/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Fides B. Baldesberger (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 December 2007 (Case R 1405/2007-4);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark depicting tweezers, for goods in class 8 (application No 5 480 108).

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-515/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 November 2012 — 4finance UAB v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba, Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 November 2012 — 4finance UAB v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba, Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-515/12)
   2013/C 26/62
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: 4finance UAB

      Defendants: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba, Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as meaning that establishing, operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme is to be regarded as a commercial practice that is in all cases misleading only where the consumer has to pay in order to receive compensation primarily for the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than for the sale or consumption of products?

               2.

               If it is necessary for the consumer to pay for the right to receive compensation, is the amount of the payment made by the consumer for the opportunity to receive compensation primarily for the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than for the sale or consumption of products relevant for the purpose of recognition of the pyramid promotional scheme as a misleading commercial practice under point 14 of Annex I to the directive? May payments by consumers which are of a purely nominal amount and which are made in order for the consumers to be identified be regarded as payments for the opportunity to receive compensation for the purpose of point 14 of Annex I to the directive?

               3.

               Must point 14 of Annex I to the directive be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a pyramid promotional scheme to be recognised as a misleading commercial practice under that point, it matters only that the compensation is paid to the consumer already in the scheme primarily because he has introduced other consumers into the scheme rather than for the sale or consumption of products, or is the extent to which the compensation paid to participants in the scheme for the introduction of new consumers is financed by contributions of the new members nevertheless also of importance? In the case under consideration, must the compensation paid to the participants in the pyramid promotional scheme who joined it earlier be financed entirely or to a large extent by the contributions of the members who are fresh entrants into the scheme?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 27 October 1998 in Case C-411/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal, Manchester): Margaret Boyle and Others v. Equal Opportunities Commission (Equal pay and equal treatment for men and women - Maternity leave - Rights of pregnant women in respect of sick leave, annual leave and the accrual of pension rights)

text:
C 397/6              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 19.12.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    of maternity leave referred to by Article 8 of Directive
                                                                       92/85/EEC, of pay higher than the statutory payments
                     of 27 October 1998                                in respect of maternity leave conditional on the
                                                                       worker's undertaking to return to work after the birth
in Case C-411/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       of the child for at least one month, failing which she is
the Industrial Tribunal, Manchester): Margaret Boyle and
                                                                       required to repay the difference between the amount
       Others v. Equal Opportunities Commission (1)
                                                                       of the pay she will have received during the period of
(Equal pay and equal treatment for men and women Ð                     maternity leave, on the one hand, and the amount of
Maternity leave Ð Rights of pregnant women in respect                  those payments, on the other.
of sick leave, annual leave and the accrual of pension
                            rights)
                        (98/C 397/09)                               2. Article 8 of Directive 92/85/EEC and Article 5(1) of
                                                                       Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on
                                                                       the implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                       for men and women as regards access to employment,
               (Language of the case: English)                         vocational training and promotion, and working
                                                                       conditions do not preclude a clause in an employment
                                                                       contract from requiring an employee who has
                                                                       expressed her intention to commence her maternity
In Case C-411/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             leave during the six weeks preceding the expected
of the EC Treaty from the Industrial Tribunal, Manchester              week of childbirth, and is on sick leave with a
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the                       pregnancy-related illness immediately before that date
proceedings pending before that court between Margaret                 and gives birth during the period of sick leave, to
Boyle and Others and Equal Opportunities Commission                    bring forward the date on which her paid maternity
Ð on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,               leave commences either to the beginning of the sixth
Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the                week preceding the expected week of childbirth or to
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                the beginning of the period of sick leave, whichever is
to the application of the principle of equal pay for men               the later.
and women (OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19), Council
Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
men and women as regards access to employment,                      3. A clause in an employment contract which prohibits a
vocational training and promotion, and working                         woman from taking sick leave during the minimum
conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40), and Council                    period of 14 weeks' maternity leave to which a female
Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                          worker is entitled pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive
introduction of measures to encourage improvements in                  92/85/EEC, unless she elects to return to work and
the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and                  thus terminate her maternity leave, is not compatible
workers who have recently given birth or are                           with Directive 92/85/EEC. By contrast, a clause in an
breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the                   employment contract which prohibits a woman from
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ                  taking sick leave during a period of supplementary
L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.               maternity leave granted to her by the employer, unless
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn                        she elects to return to work and thus terminate her
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann (Presidents of              maternity leave, is compatible with Directives 76/207/
Chambers), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,                  EEC and 92/85/EEC.
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer, Advocate General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 27 October 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                    4. Directives 92/85/EEC and 76/207/EEC do not
                                                                       preclude a clause in an employment contract from
                                                                       limiting the period during which annual leave accrues
                                                                       to the minimum period of 14 weeks' maternity leave
1. Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of Council
                                                                       to which female workers are entitled under Article 8
    Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                                                                       of Directive 92/85/EEC and from providing that
    approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                       annual leave ceases to accrue during any period of
    relating to the application of the principle of equal pay
                                                                       supplementary maternity leave granted to them by
    for men and women and Article 11 of Council
                                                                       their employer.
    Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
    introduction of measures to encourage improvements
    in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers
    and workers who have recently given birth or are
    breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the            5. Directive 92/85/EEC precludes a clause in an
    meaning of Article 16(1) of Council Directive 89/391/              emplyoment contract from limiting, in the context of
    EEC) do not preclude a clause in an employment                     an occupational scheme wholly financed by the
    contract which makes the payment, during the period                employer, the accrual of pension rights during the
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/7
     period of maternity leave referred to by Article 8 of                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     that directive to the period during which the woman
     receives the pay provided for by that contract or                                      (Sixth Chamber)
     national legislation.
                                                                                of 27 October 1998
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                              in Joined Cases C-31/97 and C-32/97 (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia
                                                                     de Catalunya): Fuerzas EleÂctricas de Catalunya SA
                                                                     (FECSA) and Autopistas Concesionaria EspanÄola SA v.
                                                                     Departament d'Economía i Finances de la Generalitat de
                                                                                Catalunya (1)
                                                                     (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Indirect taxes on the raising of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 capital Ð Duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of debenture loans)
                      of 27 October 1998                                                     (98/C 397/11)
in Case C-4/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze):
Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven SpA v. Direzione
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
           Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Taxes on the raising of capital
               Ð Tax on companies' net assets)
                         (98/C 397/10)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Joined Cases C-31/97 anbd C-32/97: references to the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Tribunal de Justicia de Catalunya, Spain, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                     between Fuerzas EleÂctricas de Catalunya SA (FECSA)
                                                                     (C-31/97), Autopistas Concesionaria EspanÄola SA (C-32/
In Case C-4/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     97) and Departament d'Economía i Finances de la
of the EC Treaty from the Commissione Tributaria
                                                                     Generalitat de Catalunya Ð on the interpretation of
Provinciale di Firenze (Provincial Tax Court, Florence)
                                                                     Articles 11(b) and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
(Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                     17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
before that court between Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven
                                                                     capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) Ð
SpA and Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana
                                                                     the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch,
Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC
                                                                     President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of
of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                     the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm
capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as
                                                                     (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N.
amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June
                                                                     Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
1985 (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth
                                                                     Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                     27 October 1998, in which it has ruled:
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 October
1998, in which it has ruled:                                         Article 11(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                     1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
                                                                     must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of
                                                                     taxation on debenture loans applies to the duty on
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
                                                                     notarial deeds recording the repayment of loans. Such a
indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
                                                                     duty cannot come within the derogation provided for in
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not
                                                                     Article 12(1)(d) of the said directive.
preclude the levying on capital companies of a tax such as
the tax on companies' net assets.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
( ) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
 1


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2000 in Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Freedom of establishment — Mutual recognition of diplomas — Harmonisation — Obligation to state reasons — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was acquired)

text:
27.1.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 28/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a
                                                                             kind as to affect the validity of Article 39(3), (4) and (11) of Council
                          (First Chamber)                                    Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common
                                                                             organisation of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation
                       of 19 October 2000                                    (EEC) No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993, or of Commission Regulation
                                                                             (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory
in Case C-155/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC)
the Pretore di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo):                       No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/94 wine year from certain
Giuseppe Busolin and Others v Ispettorato Centrale                           detailed rules for the application thereof.
Repressione Frodi — Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero
       delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the agricultural
markets — Market in wine — Compulsory distillation
                               scheme)
                           (2001/C 28/01)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 7 November 2000
In Case C-155/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Treviso,              in Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Euro-
Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo (Treviso Magistrates’ Court,                                              pean Parliament (1)
Oderzo Division), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Giuseppe                       (Action for annulment — Freedom of establishment —
Busolin and Others and Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi                Mutual recognition of diplomas — Harmonisation — Obli-
— Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero, delle Risorse Agricole,                 gation to state reasons — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of
Alimentari c Forestali — on the validity of Article 39(3), (4)               the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member
and (11) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March                   State other than that in which the qualification was acquired)
1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ
1987 L 84, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 154, p. 39), and of                                                 (2001/C 28/02)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994
opening compulsory distillation as provided for in Article 39
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for                                           (Language of the case: French)
the 1993/94 wine year from certain detailed rules for the
application thereof (OJ 1994 L 44, p. 9) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Chamber, A. La Pergola, and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges;                                         in the European Court Reports)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    In Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
19 October 2000, in which it has ruled:                                      originally represented by N. Schmit and subsequently by
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.1.2001
P. Steinmetz, assisted by J. Welter) v European Parliament                 (Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
(Agents: originally represented by C. Pennera, and A. Baas, and            the proceedings pending before that court between Schutzver-
subsequently by C. Pennera and J. Sant’Anna) and Council of                band gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV and Warsteiner
the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton),                     Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG — on the interpret-
supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: M. López-Monı́s                    ation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
Gallego, Abogado del Estado) by Kingdom of the Netherlands                 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
(Agent: M.A. Fierstra) by United Kingdom of Great Britain and              designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
Northern Ireland (Agents: J.E. Collins and D. Anderson, and by             (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiro                  guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and B. Mongin, — application for a annulment of Directive                  and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O. Edward,
98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   J.-R Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of               and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than                   H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77,                a judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:
p. 36) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P.              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,                protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von                   agricultural products and foodstuffs does not preclude the application
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 of national legislation which prohibits the potentially misleading use
judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it:                                  of a geographical indication of source in the case of which there is no
                                                                           link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           provenance.
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
      the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
      the Commission of the European Communities to bear their
      own costs.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            of 7 November 2000
                       of 7 November 2000
                                                                           in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-312/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  the Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the
the Bundesgerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen Unwesen                        High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen
in der Wirtschaft eV v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer                     v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
                        GmbH & Co. KG (1)                                                            the Regions (1)
(Protection of geographical indications and designations of                (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Scope —                             and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries
Directive 79/112/EEC — National rules prohibiting the                      of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conser-
potentially misleading use of ‘simple’ geographical indi-                  vation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and
                         cations of source)                                            social considerations — Severn Estuary)
                          (2001/C 28/03)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/04)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-371/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-312/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Queen’s Bench
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof              Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of


title: Case T-424/07: Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/29

         Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)
   (Case T-424/07)
   (2008/C 8/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (Johnston, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 September 2007 in Case R 288/2007-2 concerning Community trade mark application No 4 893 053 ‘OPTIMUM’ be annulled;

               —

               defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMUM’ for goods in class 1 — application No 4 893 053

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c), 7(2), 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 by not taking into consideration the fact that the goods in question address a specialised public and by not supporting the decision on evidence of use of the trade mark applied for.


title: Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Claudio d'Aloya against Council of the European Union. (Case T-24/99)

text:
27.3.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 86/31
Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Lùgstùr Rùr A/S                   Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Claudio d'Aloya
               against the European Commission                                   against Council of the European Union.
                         (Case T-23/99)                                                        (Case T-24/99)
                         (1999/C 86/53)                                                       (1999/C 86/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
An action against the European Commission was brought                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Communities on 21 January 1999 by Claudio d'Aloya,
Communities on 21 January 1999 by Lùgstùr Rùr A/S,                     represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by Dr
represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of Liedekerke SimeÂon                 Gabriele DonaÁ, both of the Padua Bar, with an address for
Wessing Houthoff, and by Henrik Peyts, of Kromann &                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
Münter, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Rue Mathias Hardt.
Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias
Hardt.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                       should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Ð Annul the decision notified by memorandum of
                                                                           26 March 1998 rejecting Mr d'Aloya's candidature for
                                                                           the post of Director (A2), in the Council Legal Service,
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 21 October
                                                                           referred to in Staff Notice 2/98' of 5 January 1998;
     1998 in Case IV/35.691 (District Heating Pipes) in so
     far as it is addressed to it;
                                                                       Ð Annul the decision brought to the notice of the staff of
                                                                           the General Secretariat of the Council by Notice
Ð alternatively reduce substantially the fine imposed on                   No 137/98 of 2 November 1998, by which Ricardo
     it;                                                                   Gosalbo Bono was appointed, with effect from
                                                                           12 October 1998, as Director in the Council Legal
                                                                           Service;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       Ð Order the Council to pay whatever the Court
                                                                           considers just in respect of the non-material damage
                                                                           suffered by the applicant;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Ð Order the Council to pay the costs.
The present action is brought against the decision of the
European Commission of 21 October 1998, as amended
by a decision of 6 November 1998, relating to a                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1). The
contested decision finds that the applicant has committed
infringements of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and imposes
a fine of ECU 8 900 000.                                               The applicant objects to the rejection of his application
                                                                       for the post of Director in the Council's Legal Service.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those               In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
raised in Cases T-9/99, T-15/99, T-16/99 and T-17/99.
(1) See Cases T-9/99, T-15/99, T-16/99, T-17/99 and T-21/99.           Ð non-observance of the legal basis of the vacancy notice
                                                                           (No 2/98) for the vacant post: it was established that
                                                                           the recruitment procedure was to be based on
                                                                           Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations but the
                                                                           procedure resulted in the appointment of a candidate
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/32               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
    from outside the institution who, in the applicant's            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    opinion, had already been pre-selected, regardless of
    the suitability or otherwise of candidates inside the
    institution;
                                                                    The applicants in the present case are Greene King PLC's
                                                                    (GK) tenants at the Fox and Hounds Public House at
                                                                    Kempston in Bedfordshire. GK is a UK brewer and
Ð infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                    wholesaler. The applicants entered into their lease with
    in that the appointing authority did not undertake a
                                                                    GK for a tenancy, which contained an exclusive beer
    detailed comparative examination of candidatures and
                                                                    purchasing agreement in terms which are standard in the
    attributed unlawful decisive importance to the
                                                                    UK, namely a obligation to buy beer exclusively from GK
    recommendations' of the Advisory Committee for
                                                                    or its nominees.
    Selection Procedures;
Ð arbitrariness and manifest error of assessment;                   On 23 May 1997 the applicants requested that the
                                                                    Commission hold that GK, by its network of beer supply
                                                                    agreements in the UK, infringed Article 85 of the EC
Ð misuse of powers and breach of Article 7(1) and                   Treaty. The current application challenges the formal
    Article 27 of the Staff Regulations;                            Commission's rejection of this complaint.
Ð infringement of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                    The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
    and of the principle of non-discrimination;
                                                                    decision on the grounds that the defendant failed
Ð infringement of the principle of transparency of
    administrative measures.                                        Ð properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish
                                                                        the existence of an infringement of Article 85 by GK;
                                                                    Ð to give adequate reasons for its decision rejecting the
                                                                        complaint; and
Action brought on 22 January 1999 by Colin Arthur
Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts against the Commission
                of the European Communities                         Ð properly to evaluate the existence of an infringement
                                                                        of Article 85 by reason of a price fixing cartel in the
                        (Case T-25/99)
                                                                        UK brewing industry operating at wholesale level.
                        (1999/C 86/55)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Action brought on 25 January 1999 by VASA Energy
Instance of the European Communities on 22 January                  GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
1999 by Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts,                                 European Communities
Kempston in Bedfordshire (United Kingdom), represented                                     (Case T-29/99)
by Becket Bedford of the Middle Temple, S. C. I.
Ferdinand and J. Tracy Kelly of Ferdinand Kelly,                                          (1999/C 86/56)
Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham B2 5QP (United
Kingdom).
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the decision of the Commission in Case IV/                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
    36.511/F3 Ð Roberts/Greene King dated 12 November               Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
    1998;                                                           1999 by VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg,
                                                                    represented by Dörte Annemarie Fouquet, Rechtsanwältin,
                                                                    of Messrs Kuhbier & Fouquet, Hamburg, with an address
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of this                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
    application.                                                    Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.


title: Case C-68/06: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-68/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/47)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-135/13: Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Hitachi Chemical Europe and Others v ECHA

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/26

         Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Hitachi Chemical Europe and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-135/13)
   2013/C 129/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy); and Sitre Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Partially annul Decision ED/169/2012 of the ECHA concerning the inclusion of Hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride, Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride, Hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride and Hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride (collectively referred to as ‘MHHPA’) as Substances meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (‘REACH’), in accordance with Article 59 of REACH, as it relates to MHHPA and its monomers; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment/law: (i) respiratory sensitisers are not covered by Article 57(f) of REACH and (ii) the ECHA did not provide sufficient justification and evidence in order to demonstrate that MHHPA was of ‘equivalent concern’ to a carcinogen, mutagen or toxicant for reproduction (‘CMR’), category 1, since:

                           —

                           CMR substances trigger irreversible effects whereas, in the case of MHHPA, the effects of respiratory sensitisation are not irreversible;

                           —

                           there is no consumer or worker exposure to MHHPA;

                           —

                           the assessment of MHHPA is based on data which is old and outdated;

                           —

                           the assessment did not take into account all relevant data; and

                           —

                           the assessment is mainly based on read across with another substance which is scientifically questionable and which demonstrates the poor and limited data used for the assessment of MHHPA.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence, as the applicants did not have the opportunity to fully defend their case because of the lack of objective criteria for considering whether a substance is of equivalent concern according to Article 57(f) REACH, especially in the case of a respiratory sensitiser such as MHHPA, and because ECHA did not take into account all information available or provided by the industry during the commenting period.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, as the ECHA had a choice of measures with respect to MHHPA and by identifying MHHPA as Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) caused the applicants disadvantages which are disproportionate in relation to the aims pursued.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)