title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-182/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Aménagement du territoire et de l'Environnement, interveners: Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chasseurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier d'eau (Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations)

text:
29.11.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 289/7
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 16 October 2003
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
in Case C-91/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Hannl + Hofstetter
Internationale Spedition GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion                         in Case C-182/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
        für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (1)                         the Conseil d’État): Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux
                                                                              and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Aménage-
                                                                              ment du territoire et de l’Environnement, interveners:
(Community Customs Code — Customs debt on importation
                                                                              Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chas-
                — Charging of interest on arrears)
                                                                              seurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier
                                                                                d’eau (1)
                           (2003/C 289/12)
                     (Language of the case: German)                           (Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
                                                                                Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/13)
In Case C-91/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                                       (Language of the case: French)
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale Spedition GmbH and Fi-                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
nanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgen-                                        in the European Court Reports)
land, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down                        In Case C-182/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92                    EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
(OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed                   the proceedings pending before that court between Ligue pour
of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                      la protection des oiseaux and Others and Premier ministre,
V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,               Ministre de l’Aménagement du territoire et de l’Environnement,
Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003,                 interveners: Union nationale des fédérations départementales
in which it has ruled:                                                        de chasseurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier
                                                                              d’eau, on the interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                        Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
establishing the Community Customs Code and Commission Regu-                  wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions                 composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 must be                       R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and
interpreted as not precluding legislation which provides for an increase      N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
in duty in the event of the incurrence of a customs debt under                eral; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment
Articles 202 to 205 or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the               on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
event of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code,
corresponding to the amount which would have been incurred as
interest on arrears for the period between the incurrence of the customs      1.    Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
debt and the entry in the accounts or, in the case of subsequent                    1979 on the conservation of wild birds permits a Member
recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code, between the date                    State to derogate from the opening and closing dates for
when the customs debt originally entered in the accounts was due and                hunting which follow from consideration of the objectives set
the subsequent entry in the accounts of that debt, provided that the                out in Article 7(4) of that directive.
rate of interest is determined under conditions which are comparable
to those applicable under national law to infringements of the same           2.    Article 9 of Directive 79/409 must be interpreted as allowing
nature and gravity and which make the penalty effective, proportionate              hunting to be authorised pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) where:
and dissuasive. It is for the national court to determine whether the
rate of increase at issue in the main proceedings is consistent with
                                                                                —     there is no other satisfactory solution. That condition
those principles.
                                                                                would not be met, inter alia, if the sole purpose of the
                                                                                derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.                                                                periods for certain species of birds in territories which they
                                                                                already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in
                                                                                accordance with Article 7 of Directive 79/409;
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
      —    it is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and         gations under Article 3 of that directive, the Court (Second
           on a selective basis;                                              Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
                                                                              Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
      —    it applies only to certain birds in small numbers;                 C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                              a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:
      —    mention is made of:
           (a)    the species which are subject to the derogations;           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative measures necessary to comply with Commission
           (b) the means, arrangements or methods authorised for                    Directive 2000/21/EC of 25 April 2000 concerning the list
                  capture or killing;                                               of Community legislation referred to in the fifth indent of
                                                                                Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the French
           (c)    the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of
                  and place under which such derogations may be                     that directive;
                  granted;
                                                                              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
           (d) the authority empowered to declare that the required
                  conditions obtain and to decide what means,
                  arrangements or methods may be used, within what            (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                  limits and by whom;
           (e)    the controls which will be carried out.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                              in Case C-325/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                        of 16 October 2003                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
in Case C-307/02: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                     ties v French Republic (1)                                                 transpose Directive 98/81/EC)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                                             (2003/C 289/15)
2000/21/EC — Labelling of dangerous substances — Failure
                             to transpose)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          (2003/C 289/14)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-325/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti) v Grand Duchy of
                                                                              Luxembourg (Agent: P. Gramegna): Application for a declar-
In Case C-307/02, Commission of the European Communities                      ation that, by transposing only part of Article 1 of and
(Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues                    Annexes IV and V to Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October
and D. Petrausch): Application for a declaration that, by failing             1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                  of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330,
necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC                      p. 13), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
of 25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legislation                 obligations under Article 2 of that directive, the Court
referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council                   (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
Directive 67/548/EEC (OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70), or in any                        the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
event not immediately informing the Commission of those                       F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-                judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 April 1998 in Case T-214/95: Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region) v. Commission of the European Communities (Application for annulment - Air transport - State aid - Small amount - Distortion of competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Statement of reasons)

text:
C 184/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.6.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          annulment of Commission Decision 95/466/EC of 26 July
                       of 30 April 1998                            1995 concerning aid granted by the Flemish Region to the
                                                                   Belgian airline Vlaamse Luchttransportmaatschappij NV
in Case T-214/95: Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region)              (OJ L 267 of 9.11.1995, p. 49) Ð the Court (Fifth
      v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of R.
                                                                   García-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M.
(Application for annulment Ð Air transport Ð State aid
                                                                   Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Ð Small amount Ð Distortion of competition Ð Effect
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 on trade between Member States Ð Statement of reasons)
                                                                   30 April 1998 in which it:
                        (98/C 184/18)
                                                                   1. Dismisses the application;
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-214/95: Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region),             2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
represented by Alfred L. Merckx, of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
Duro and Lorang, 4 Boulevard Royal, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Pieter
Van Nuffel and Anders Christian Jessen) Ð application
for annulment of Commission Decision 95/466/EC of
26 July 1995 concerning aid granted by the Flemish
Region to the Belgian airline Vlaamse Luchttransport-
maatschappij NV (OJ L 267 of 9.11.1995, p. 49) Ð the               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended                                        FIRST INSTANCE
Composition), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.                                   of 2 April 1998
Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,         in Case T-86/96 R: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher
has given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it:                Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Others v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
1. Dismisses the application;                                      (State aid Ð Commission decision classifying a national
                                                                   aid measure as incompatible with the common market Ð
2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs.                         Interim measures Ð Order requiring authorisation for the
                                                                   aid to be granted on a provisional basis Ð Urgency Ð
                                                                                Balance of interests)
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                                (98/C 184/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          In Cases T-86/96 R: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luft-
                       of 30 April 1998                            fahrt-Unternehmen, established in Bonn, composed of the
                                                                   following members: Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH & Co.
in Case T-16/96: Cityflyer Express Ltd v. Commission of            Luftverkehrs-KG, established at Oberursel (Germany), Air
                the European Communities (1)                       Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, established in
(Action for annulment Ð Air transport Ð State aid Ð                Berlin, Condor Flugdienst GmbH, established at
Interest-free loan Ð Amount of the aid Ð Principle of the          Kelsterbach (Germany), Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,
market economy investor Ð Principle of proportionality             established in Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
Ð Manifest error of assessment Ð Statement of reasons              established at Langenhagen (Germany), LTU Lufttransport
Ð Need for exchange of argument between the                        Unternehmen GmbH & Co. KG, established in
              Commission and the complainant)                      Düsseldorf, and Hapag Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
                                                                   established at Langenhagen, represented by Gerrit Schohe,
                        (98/C 184/19)                              Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
               (Language of the case: English)                     Philippe II, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz and Georg Berrisch) Ð
                                                                   application for interim measures in relation to
In Case T-16/96: Cityflyer Express Ltd, established at             Commission Decision 96/369/EC of 13 March 1996
Gatwick Airport (United Kingdom), represented by                   concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form
Charles Price, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            of a depreciation facility (OJ L 146 of 20.6.1996, p. 42)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong               Ð the President of the Court of First Instance has made
v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                 an order on 2 April 1998, the operative part of which is
Peter Oliver and Anders Jessen) Ð application for                  as follows:


title: Case T-113/11: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisee v Commission (Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — ‘Gouda Holland’  — No interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/11

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisee v Commission
   (Case T-113/11) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - ‘Gouda Holland’ - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 380/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Defendant: The Commission (represented by: initially, G. von Rintelen and M. Vollkommer, then G. von Rintelen and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: The Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer, M. Noort, B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents); and Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. van Ginneken, F. Gerritzen and C. van Veen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1122/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)] (OJ 2010 L 317, p. 22).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisee eV shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-415/09: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM — Vallis K. — Vallis A. (FISHBONE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE — Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Consideration of additional evidence — Statement of reasons — Proof of genuine use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — First subparagraph and second subparagraph, heading (a), of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2), (3) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM — Vallis K. — Vallis A. (FISHBONE)
   (Case T-415/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE - Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Consideration of additional evidence - Statement of reasons - Proof of genuine use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - First subparagraph and second subparagraph, heading (a), of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2), (3) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 331/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG, formerly New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vallis K. — Vallis A. & Co. OE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Kilimiri, V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, lawyers, and H.J. O’Neill, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2009 (Case R 1051/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Vallis K. — Vallis A. & Co. OE and New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-441/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/391/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work — Article 7(3))

text:
19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 171/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 22 May 2003                                                                 of 22 May 2003
in Case C-393/01: French Republic v Commission of the                        in Case C-441/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                    European Communities ( 1)                                               ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
(Agriculture — Animal health — Emergency measures to                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy — ‘Mad cow’                          89/391/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the
disease — Decision to lift the ban on bovine products                             safety and health of workers at work — Article 7(3))
                       originating in Portugal)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/09)
                           (2003/C 171/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-441/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-393/01, French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham and                    (Agents: H. van Vliet and H. Kreppel ) v Kingdom of
G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, the by the latter and G. de             the Netherlands (Agent: H. G. Sevenster): Application for a
Bergues and F. Alabrune) v Commission of the European                        declaration that, by authorising employers to choose freely
Communities (Agents: D. Booß and G. Berscheid), supported                    whether to make use of internal or external health and safety
by Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes), United Kingdom                 services, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:J. E. Collins):                 obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 7(3) of Council
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/                       Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
577/EC of 25 July 2001 setting the date on which dispatch                    measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
from Portugal of bovine products under the Date-Based Export                 of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
Scheme may commence by virtue of Article 22(2) of Decision                   Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans, President of
2001/376/EC (OJ 2001 L 203, p. 27), the Court (Fifth                         the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-                  Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas
er, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and                      (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  eral; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:
a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by not reflecting, in its national legislation the
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2001/577/EC of 25 July 2001                       subsidiary nature of the enlistment by undertakings of external
      setting the date on which dispatch from Portugal of bovine                   competent services to carry out activities related to protection
      products under the Date-Based Export Scheme may commence                     against and prevention of occupational risks within those
      by virtue of Article 22(2) of Decision 2001/376/EC;                          undertakings, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Council Directive 89/
                                                                                391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs;                                      encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at
                                                                                work.
3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.            2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.


title: Action brought on 24 June 1998 by Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-96/98)

text:
C 258/38             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
Action brought on 24 June 1998 by Bureau EuropeÂen                 According to the applicant, therefore, the object of the
des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) against the                     present case differs from that of the application in Case
         Commission of the European Communities                    T-256/97. Whereas that case concerns the right of
                        (Case T-96/98)                             representative consumer organisations to take part in anti-
                                                                   dumping proceedings as interested parties, the present
                         (98/C 258/68)                             application refers to the validity of a regulation adopted
                                                                   following a procedure which infringes an essential
               (Language of the case: English)                     procedural requirement.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998, p. 21.
An action against the Commission of the European                   (2) OJ L 111 of 9.4.1998, p. 19.
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  (3) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1998
by Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de Consommateurs
(BEUC), represented by Bernard O'Connor and Bonifacio
García Porras, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie
Adelaïde.
                                                                   Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Maurizio Gastaldello
                                                                               against the Committee of the Regions
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                (Case T-97/98)
                                                                                (98/C 258/69)
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     of 7 April 1998 imposing a provisional anti-dumping
     duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics
     originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt,         An action against the Committee of the Regions was
     India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey;                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 30 June 1998 by Maurizio Gastaldello,
                                                                   residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
Ð make any additional order which the Court considers              VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
     necessary; and                                                Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the                     30 Rue de Cessange.
     proceedings.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the
                                                                       tests in competition C/01/97;
The applicant in the present case, the same as in Case
T-256/97 (1), is an international representative consumer
organisation comprising a number of national                       Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
organisations, whose object is the promotion of the
interests of consumers in relation to the policies of the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Union.
                                                                   On 27 October 1997 the applicant, a grade D 3/4 official
The applicant claims that Commission Regulation (EC)               in the Council of the European Union, submitted his
No 773/98 of 7 April 1998, imposing a provisional anti-            application to take part in internal competition No C/01/
dumping duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton               97 organised by the Committee of the Regions with a
fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China,             view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of
Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey (2), should be        grade C5/C4 typists.
declared void.
                                                                   The contested decision provided that he was not to be
It is submitted in this regard that the Commission, by not         admitted to the tests.
recognising the applicant as an interested party in
the administrative procedure relating to the contested             According to the applicant, the notice of competition is
regulation and by not allowing it either to have access            unlawful in that it lays down a criterion for admission
to all confidential documents and information made                 which cannot be legally justified by the specific
available during the anti-dumping proceeding or to submit          requirements of the posts to be filled. He further
its comments, has infringed an essential procedural                maintains that the notice is unlawful in that it excludes
requirement provided for in favour of consumer                     applications from potential candidates fulfilling the
organisations in Article 6(7) and 21(2) of Council                 criteria laid down by Article 5(4) of the Staff Regulations
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                   who, at the time when the notice of competition was
protection against dumped imports from countries not               published, were not performing duties similar to those
members of the European Community (3).                             described in Point II of the notice in question.


title: Appeal Chamber

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/2

         Appeal Chamber
   2009/C 153/03
   On 16 June 2009, the Court of First Instance decided that, for the period from 1 October 2009 to 31 August 2010, the Appeal Chamber will be composed of the President of the Court and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers.
   The Judges who will sit with the President of the Appeal Chamber to make up the extended formation of five Judges will be the three Judges of the formation initially hearing the case and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers.


title: Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-357/96)

text:
No C 370/ 10               EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
seised second declines jurisdiction, despite the parties in the               Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of
two cases not being strictly identical , on the ground that the               the European Communities against the Kingdom of
procedural law aipplicable before the court seised first                                                        Belgium
' restricts the opportunity for an insurer to be party to                                                 ( Case C-357/96 )
proceedings in which the insured is involved' so that the
insurer of the vessel is in fact also involved, through the                                                 ( 96/C 370/23 )
intermediary of the insured, in the case brought first ?
                                                                              An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                              on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
                                                                              Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                               Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                  Belgium
                            ( Case C-356/96 )                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              the Court should :
                              ( 96/C 370/22 )
                                                                              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                 and administrative measures necessary in order to
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                              comply with Commission Directive 94/ 15/EEC of
on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European                                 15 April 1994 ( ] ) adapting to technical progress for the
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal                                   first time Council Directive 90/220/EEC ( 2 ) on the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                             deliberate release into the environment of genetically
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                 modified organisms, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                            to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should :
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      and administrative measures necessary in order to                       Case C-356/96 ( 3 ); the time limit for transposition expired
      comply with Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of                         on 30 June 1994 .
      22 July 1991 ( ] ) adapting to technical progress for the
       14th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) on the                    (!) OJ No L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p . 20 .
      approximation of laws, regulations and administrative                   ( 2 ) OJNoL 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
      provisions relating to the classification, packaging and                ( 3 ) See Case C-356/96 above .
      labelling of dangerous substances, and/or by failing to
      communicate those measures, the Kingdom of Belgium
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                              the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                         Case C-358/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/24 )
In view of the binding nature of directives, as provided for
in the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, and
in view of the first paragraph of Article 5 of that Treaty,                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Member States to whom a directive is addressed are obliged                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
to achieve the results pursued by it within the time limit                    on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed therein, that is to say, to transpose its provisions               Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
into national law in such a way that it produces its full                     Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
effect as soon as the time limit for transposition expires.                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
That time limit expired on 1 August 1992 but the Kingdom                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
of Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures .
                                                                              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              the Court should :
f 1 ) OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 67.
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition ( 1967 ), p. 234 .
                                                                              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative measures necessary in order to


title: Case C-294/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/43/EC — Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts — Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period — Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-294/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/43/EC - Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts - Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period - Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)
   2010/C 148/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC and, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the provisions of national law considered to contribute to ensuring such compliance, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-404/09: Action brought on 20 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/15

         Action brought on 20 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-404/09)
   2010/C 11/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that,

                           (a)

                           that, by giving consent to the opencast mines ‘Fonfría’, ‘Nueva Julia’ and ‘Los Ladrones’ but failing to subject that consent to an assessment in order to identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the existing opencast mining projects, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 5(1) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC.

                           (b)

                           that, from 2000, the date of classification of the ‘Alto Sil’ as a bird protection area:

                                       —

                                       by having given consent to the opencast mines ‘Nueva Julia’ and ‘Los Ladrones’ but failing to subject that consent to an appropriate assessment of the possible effects of those projects; and in any event failing to comply with the conditions under which the execution of a project is permitted, in spite of the risk which those projects represented for the capercaillie species which is one of the natural assets which justified the classification of the ‘Alto Sil’ bird protection area and in the absence of alternative solutions, namely for imperative reasons of overriding public interest and only after having notified the Commission of the necessary compensatory measures to ensure that the coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected.

                                       —

                                       and by having failed to adopt the necessary measures to prevent the deterioration of the habitats of that species, and to prevent the disturbance of that species, which was the reason for the designation of that area as a bird protection area, caused by the ‘Feixolín’, ‘Salguero-Prégame-Valdesegadas’‘Fonfría’‘Ampliación de Feixolín’ and ‘Nueva Julia’ mines;

                                 the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to the ‘Alto Sil’ bird protection area under Article 6(2) (3) and (4) in conjunction with Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2)

                           (c)

                           that, from January 1998,

                                       —

                                       by failing in relation to the mining operations at the ‘Feixolín’, ‘Salguero-Prégame-Valdesegadas’, ‘Fonfría’ and ‘Nueva Julia’ mines to adopt the necessary measures to safeguard the ecological interest which the proposed ‘Alto Sil’ site had at national level,

                                       —

                                       the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to the proposed ‘Alto Sil’ site, pursuant to the interpretation of the Court of Justice in Case C 117/03 Dragaggi [2005] ECR I 167 and Case C 244/05 Bund Naturschutz in Bayern [2006] ECR I 8445, and

                           (d)

                           that, from December 2004

                                       —

                                       by permitting opencast mining (in the case of the ‘Feixolín’, ‘Salguero-Prégame-Valdesegadas’, ‘Fonfría’ and ‘Nueva Julia’ mines) likely to have a significant impact on the natural assets which determined the designation of the ‘Alto Sil’ area as a site of Community interest but failing to make an appropriate assessment of the possible impact of those mines, and in any event failing to comply with the conditions under which the execution of those projects would be permitted, in spite of the risk which they represented to the natural assets which justified the designation of the ‘Alto Sil’ and in the absence of alternative solutions, namely solely for imperative reasons of overriding public interest and only after having notified the Commission of the necessary compensatory measures to ensure that the coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected;

                                       —

                                       and by having omitted in relation to the above opencast mining to adopt the necessary measures to prevent the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species, and the disturbances of species caused by the ‘Feixolín’, ‘Salguero-Prégame-Valdesegadas’, ‘Fonfría’, ‘Nueva Julia’ and ‘Ampliación de Feixolín’ mines;

                                 the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to the ‘Alto Sil’ site of community interest under Article 6(2) (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission became aware of the existence of various opencast coal mines, developed by the Empresa Minero Siderúrgica de Ponferrada (MSP), likely to affect the natural assets of the area proposed as the ‘Alto Sil’ site of Community interest (ES0000210), situated in the province of León in the northeast of the Autonomous Community of Castilla y León. Reports confirmed not only the existence at the same time of several open cast mines for the extraction of coal, but also that the opencast mining was to continue by means of further mines to which consent had been given or was about to be given.
   As regards Directive 85/337/EEC, the Commission considers that, as regards the three mines at issue, no account was taken of the possible indirect, cumulative or synergistic effects on the most vulnerable species.
   The Commission considers that, having regard to the nature of the projects at issue, their proximity and their lasting effects over time, the description of the significant effects of those projects on the environment, pursuant to what is laid down in Annex IV to Directive 85/337/EEC ought necessarily to cover ‘the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary. effects of the project’.
   As regards Directive 92/43, in relation to habitats, the species referred to by the application are mainly the capercaillie and the brown bear. The Commission considers that the consequences of the mines on those species cannot be assessed solely in terms of direct destruction of the critical areas for those species, but that account must be taken of the greater fragmentation, degradation and destruction of habitats which are potentially suitable for reconquest by those species and of the increased disturbance caused to those species, those being matters which have not been taken into account. Further there is the additional risk of a definite barrier effect as a result of the movement and fragmentation of populations.
   In brief, the Commission considers that the mines at issue worsen the factors considered to be causing the decline of those species and that therefore the authorities are not entitled to conclude that the mining activities at issue have no significant effects on those species.
   Consequently, the Commission considers that there has been no assessment of the possible impact on the capercaillie and brown bear species which can be considered appropriate, within the meaning of Article 6(3). The Commission considers that if such an assessment had taken place, the conclusion would have to have been, at the least, that there was not the certainty which the case-law requires that there were no significant effects for those species stemming from the projects to which consent had been given. That means that the authorities were entitled to give consent to those opencast mining projects solely after they were satisfied that the conditions of Article 6(4)were met; in other words, in the absence of alternatives, including the ‘zero alternative’, after they had identified the existence of imperative reasons of overriding public interest to justify the application of the exception to the rule contained in that article and after, as appropriate, they had determined the necessary compensatory measures.

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40

      (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)


title: Case C-281/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Communities' financial interests — Article 3 — Recovery of an export refund — Error on the part of the national authorities — Limitation period)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG
   (Case C-281/07) (1)

   (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Communities' financial interests - Article 3 - Recovery of an export refund - Error on the part of the national authorities - Limitation period)
   (2009/C 69/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Defendant: Bayerische Hypotheken- und Vereinsbank AG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Applicability of the time-limit laid down by Regulation No 2988/95 in the case of recovery of an export refund granted as a result of an error on the part of the national authorities but without any wrongdoing on the part of the trader concerned
   Operative part of the judgment
   The limitation period of four years laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests is not applicable to a claim for recovery of an export refund unduly granted to an exporter as a result of an error on the part of the national authorities, where that exporter did not commit any irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-27/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — Lo Giudice v Commission (Officials — Career development report — 2003 assessment procedure — Procedural irregularities — Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Right to be heard — Sick leave — Medical certificate)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — Lo Giudice v Commission
   (Case T-27/05) (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - 2003 assessment procedure - Procedural irregularities - Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Right to be heard - Sick leave - Medical certificate)
   (2007/C 297/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carmela Lo Giudice (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti and G. Bounéou initially, then by F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, agents)
   Re:
   Application seeking the annulment of the assessment procedure covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003 and, in the alternative, the annulment of the decision of 4 May 2004 drawing up the definitive version of the career development report on the applicant in respect of the relevant period.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 4 May 2004 drawing up the definitive version of the career development report on the applicant in respect of the 2003 assessment procedure;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-522/08: Action brought on 28 November 2008 — Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Mary Quant (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/45

         Action brought on 28 November 2008 — Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Mary Quant (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)
   (Case T-522/08)
   (2009/C 32/87)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mary Quant Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the contested decision be annulled and replaced with a different decision in which registration of Community trade mark No 3.291.234 is granted in respect of all the goods requested in Class 3 of the Classification (including ‘soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions’), and MARY QUANT Cosmetics Japan Ltd. be ordered to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, and

               —

               the defendant, and any intervening or other party, be ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a pink flower with a yellow centre on a light green background with the wording AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA (application No 3.291.234) for goods in Classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27 and 28.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MARY QUANT Cosmetics Japan Ltd.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark representing a black flower with a black centre surrounded by a white outline: British trade marks for goods in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26 and Community trade mark for goods in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 26.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld in part.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-207/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 April 2014  — Hotel Sava Rogaška, gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o. v The Republic of Slovenia — Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in okolje

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Hotel Sava Rogaška, gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o. v The Republic of Slovenia — Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in okolje
   (Case C-207/14)
   2014/C 202/17
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hotel Sava Rogaška, gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o.

      Defendant: The Republic of Slovenia — Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in okolje

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters to be interpreted in such as way that ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ means:

                           a)

                           water from one and the same point of exit, but not water that is drawn from different exits even when such water originates in the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC (2), or

                           b)

                           water from one and the same point of exit, but not water that is drawn from different exits even when such water originates in the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC, although, in interpreting the expression, account should be taken of factors such as the distance between exits, the depth of the exits, the specific qualities of the water drawn from individual exits (such as its chemical and microbiological composition), hydraulic connectivity between exits and the confinement of the water held by the aquifer, or

                           c)

                           water springing from the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC irrespective of whether it reaches the surface at a number of different exits, or;

                           d)

                           water springing from the same aquifer or body of groundwater within the meaning of the definitions of ‘aquifer’ and ‘body of groundwater’ given in Directive 2000/60/EC irrespective of whether it reaches the surface at a number of different exits, although, in interpreting the expression, account should be taken of factors such as the distance between exits, the depth of the exits, the specific qualities of the water drawn from individual exits (such as its chemical and microbiological composition), hydraulic connectivity between exits and the confinement of the water held by the aquifer?

               2.

               If none of the suggested answers to question 1 should be correct, must the interpretation of the notion of ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ take into account factors such as the distance between exits, the depth of the exits, the specific qualities of the water drawn from individual exits, hydraulic connectivity between exits and the confinement of the water held by the aquifer?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 164, p. 45.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case C-571/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Request for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Articles 70(1) and 78 — Customs declarations — Partial examination of goods — Sampling — Incorrect code — Application of the results to identical goods covered by earlier customs declarations after release — Post-release examination — Impossible to request a further examination of the goods)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-571/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Articles 70(1) and 78 - Customs declarations - Partial examination of goods - Sampling - Incorrect code - Application of the results to identical goods covered by earlier customs declarations after release - Post-release examination - Impossible to request a further examination of the goods))
   2014/C 112/11
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1), and of Article 78(2), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Application of the results of the examinations of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to identical goods included in other declarations — Whether such a practice by the customs authorities is permissible — Post-clearance examination — Application of the results of the examinations also to declarations which can no longer be verified.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, since it applies only to goods covered by ‘a [single] declaration’ where those goods are examined by the customs authorities before those authorities grant the release of those goods, that provision does not permit those authorities, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, to apply the results of the partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration to goods covered by earlier customs declarations which have already been released by those authorities;
   However, Article 78 of that Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it permits the customs authorities to apply the results of a partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration, carried out by way of sampling of them, to goods covered by earlier customs declarations submitted by the same customs declarant, which were not and can no longer be examined since the release has been granted, where those goods are identical, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Case T-196/14: Order of the General Court of 22 July 2015 — Swedish Match North Europe v OHIM — Skruf Snus (Oral snuff packages)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/58

         Order of the General Court of 22 July 2015 — Swedish Match North Europe v OHIM — Skruf Snus (Oral snuff packages)
   (Case T-196/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/71)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-153/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2009 — Agrargut Bäbelin GmbH & Co KG v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 4 May 2009 — Agrargut Bäbelin GmbH & Co KG v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow
   (Case C-153/09)
   2009/C 180/42
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Agrargut Bäbelin GmbH & Co KG

      Defendant: Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a farmer prevented from activating payment entitlements based on permanent pasture before activating all payment entitlements based on set-aside, even if he does not hold any other (arable) areas eligible for set-aside?

               2.

               If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: Do the sanctions under Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (1) also apply to a farmer who before 29 December 2006 (in the absence of areas eligible for set-aside) infringes the obligation first to activate completely payment entitlements based on set-aside?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2005 in Case T-273/00 Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid — National procedure for repayment precluded — Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/19

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 March 2005
   in Case T-273/00 Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid - National procedure for repayment precluded - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 155/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-273/00: Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere, Mingardi Srl and the other twelve applicants listed in the Annex to the order, established in Venice (Italy), represented by A. Vianello, M. Merola and A.Sodano, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood, I. Pelikánová, S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible in so far as it was brought by Mingardi Srl and Marsilio Editori SpA.

               2.

               Mingardi Srl and Marsilio Editori SpA shall bear their own costs.

               3.

               The Commission shall bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by Mingardi Srl and Marsilio Editori SpA.

               4.

               The Italian Republic shall bear the costs it has incurred in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by Mingardi Srl and Marsilio Editori SpA.

               5.

               The remainder of the costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-573/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/2

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2013 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV
      (Case C-573/13)
      (2014/C 71/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant on a point of law: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

         Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the final price to be paid must, in the context of a computerised booking system, be indicated when the prices of air services are shown for the first time?

                  2.

                  Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that the final price to be paid must, in the context of a computerised booking system, be indicated only for the air service specifically selected by the customer or for each air service shown?

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3).


title: Case F-85/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Bellantone v Court of Auditors

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/18

         Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Bellantone v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-85/06)
   (2006/C 237/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerardo Bellantone (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Court of Auditors of 30 March 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint seeking payment of the balance of the allowance in lieu of additional notice, of the severance grant and of the daily subsistence allowance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay: (i) EUR 20 751,45 in respect of additional notice, (ii) EUR 39 247,74 corresponding to the severance grant to which the applicant could have been entitled, (iii) EUR 8 467,02 in respect of daily subsistence allowance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay interest for late payment until payment is made;

               —

               Order the rectification of the remarks made in the contested decision concerning the absence of any remark by the applicant regarding the threat of possible dismissal by the defendant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the European Court of Auditors in Grade A*8, was appointed as a probationary official in Grade A*5, without his agreement being sought beforehand.
   In his application, the applicant maintains that the defendant's conduct amounts to breaches of contractual and non-contractual duties. He alleges infringement of the Code of good administrative conduct for the staff of the European Court of Auditors, infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, as well as infringement of the general principles of the law of the public service relating to sound administration, legitimate expectations and the retention of acquired rights.


title: Case T-340/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2014  — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Call for tenders by the Publications Office — Assistance in the provision of publishing and communication services in connection with the CORDIS website — Rejection of a tenderer’s offers and decision to award the contracts to other tenderers — Classification of the tenderer’s offer — Obligation to state reasons — Article 148(1) and (3) of the Implementing Rules — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-340/09) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Call for tenders by the Publications Office - Assistance in the provision of publishing and communication services in connection with the CORDIS website - Rejection of a tenderer’s offers and decision to award the contracts to other tenderers - Classification of the tenderer’s offer - Obligation to state reasons - Article 148(1) and (3) of the Implementing Rules - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
   2014/C 175/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, (Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: represented initially by S. Delaude and N. Bambara, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents, assisted by C. Erkelens, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, notified to the applicant by letter of 9 June 2009, not to select its tenders submitted in response to call for tender No 10017 (CORDIS) in relation to Lot B, entitled ‘Editorial and publishing services’, and Lot C, entitled ‘Provision of New Digital Information Services’, respectively, and to place its tender, submitted in response to that call for tenders in third position for Lot E, entitled ‘Development and Maintenance of Core Services’, and, second, for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear 90% of its own costs and 90% of the costs incurred by the European Commission and orders the Commission to bear 10% of its own costs and 10% of the costs incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7. 11. 2009.


title: Case C-165/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Genetically modified organisms — Seed — Prohibition on placing on the market — Prohibition on inclusion in the national catalogue of varieties — Directives 2001/18/EC and 2002/53/EC — Reliance on ethical and religious grounds — Burden of proof)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-165/08) (1)

   (Genetically modified organisms - Seed - Prohibition on placing on the market - Prohibition on inclusion in the national catalogue of varieties - Directives 2001/18/EC and 2002/53/EC - Reliance on ethical and religious grounds - Burden of proof)
   2009/C 220/16
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) and of Articles 4(4) and 16 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1) — National legislation prohibiting the marketing of seed derived from genetically modified varieties and the registration of such varieties in the national catalogue of varieties

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by prohibiting the free circulation of genetically modified seed varieties and the inclusion of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue of varieties, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and under Articles 4(4) and 16 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one-third of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case C-190/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris): criminal proceedings against Edouard Balguerie and Others and Société Balguerie and Others (Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 — Conditions under which certain goods are eligible on import for a favourable tariff arrangement by reason of their end-use — Regulations (EEC) Nos 1517/91, 1431/92 and 1421/93 — Suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties — Dates)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 3 May 2001
                                                                                of 10 May 2001
in Case C-190/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d’appel de Paris): criminal proceedings against                   in Case C-152/98: Commission of the European Communi-
Edouard Balguerie and Others and Société Balguerie and                                   ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                               Others (1)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 — Conditions under which                      Directive 76/464/EEC — Water pollution — Failure to
certain goods are eligible on import for a favourable tariff                                               transpose)
arrangement by reason of their end-use — Regulations
(EEC) Nos 1517/91, 1431/92 and 1421/93 — Suspension
  of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties — Dates)                                                   (2001/C 200/20)
                           (2001/C 200/19)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-152/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: H. van Lier and J. Stuyck) v Kingdom of the
In Case C-190/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 Netherlands (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and C. Wissels) — appli-
EC from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) for a preliminary               cation for a declaration that, by failing to take adequate steps
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court               to transpose Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive
against Édouard Balguerie and Others and Société Balguerie                76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
and Others, liable in a civil capacity — on the interpretation             dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December                    of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), the Kingdom of
1987 determining the conditions under which certain goods                  the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
are eligible on import for a favourable tariff arrangement by              directive and Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249
reason of their end-use (OJ 1987 L 387 p. 81) — the Court                  EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                  F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in which it has ruled:                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in
                                                                           which it:
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December 1987
determining the conditions under which certain goods are eligible on       1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt for the Scheldt basin all the
import for a favourable tariff arrangement by reason of their end-use,           measures necessary to transpose Article 7 of Council Directive
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1517/91 of 31 May 1991, Council                      76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
Regulation (EEC) No 1431/92 of 26 May 1992 and Council                           dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment
Regulation (EEC) No 1421/93 of 7 June 1993 temporarily                           of the Community, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed
suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on a                      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
number of agricultural products do not preclude dates imported in
original packings of a net content not exceeding 11 kg from being          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
eligible for suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff
duties.                                                                    3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: Case C-337/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Council of the European Union v Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd, European Commission, Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace) (Appeal — Commercial policy — Dumping — Imports of glyphosate originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(7)(b) and (c) — Status of an undertaking operating under market economy conditions — Concept of ‘significant State interference’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) — State shareholder controlling de facto the general meeting of the producer’s shareholders — Equating such control to ‘significant interference’ — Assessment of an export contract stamping mechanism — Limits of judicial review — Assessment of the evidence submitted)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Council of the European Union v Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd, European Commission, Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace)
   (Case C-337/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Commercial policy - Dumping - Imports of glyphosate originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - Status of an undertaking operating under market economy conditions - Concept of ‘significant State interference’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) - State shareholder controlling de facto the general meeting of the producer’s shareholders - Equating such control to ‘significant interference’ - Assessment of an export contract stamping mechanism - Limits of judicial review - Assessment of the evidence submitted)
   2012/C 295/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd (represented initially by D. Horovitz, avocat, and subsequently by F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis and A. Woolich, advocaten, K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and D. Moulis, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf, N. Khan and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), Association des utilisateurs et distributeurs de l’agrochimie européenne (Audace) (represented by: J. Flynn QC)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 17 June 2009 of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-498/04 Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group v Council [2009] ECR II-1969, annulling, in so far as it concerns Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group Co. Ltd., Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 of 24 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of glyphosate originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 303, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) — Market economy treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.