title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT of 24 September 1996 in Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland supported by Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities (Applications for interim measures - Social policy - Community measures to assist the elderly - Community measures to combat poverty and social exclusion)

text:
No C 354/ 14           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                23 . 11 . 96
judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the            24 September 1996, the operative part of which is as
European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ) on 16 November               follows :
1994 in Case T-451 /93 San Marco v. Commission [ 1994]
ECR 11-1061 , and for compensation for the damage
allegedly suffered by the appellant in relation to a public         1 . When committing expenditure in implementation of its
works contract concluded by it with the Government of the               circular of 2 May 1996 inviting applications for
Somali Democratic Republic, the other party to the                      Commission funding of measures to assist the elderly
proceedings being the Commission of the European                        and of its circular received by the United Kingdom
Communities ( Agents: Hans Peter Hartvig and Claire Bury )              authorities on 15 May 1996 inviting applications for
— the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward              Commission funding of measures to combat poverty
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L.                and social exclusion, the Commission shall clearly state
Sevon, Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar: R.            that such commitments are conditional upon the
Grass, made an order on 17 September 1996 , the operative               judgment of the Court in the main proceedings and shall
part of which is as follows :                                           make no payment until that judgment is delivered.
                                                                    2.  Costs are reserved.
1 . The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
2 . San Marco Impex Italiana is ordered to bear its own
      costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
t 1 ) OJ No C 74, 1995 .
                                                                    Action brought on 26 August 1996 by the Federal Republic
                                                                    of Germany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-288/96 )
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                                     ( 96/C 354/28 )
                     of 24 September 1996
in Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R: United                   An action against the Commission of the European
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland supported             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
by Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the                 European Communities on 26 August 1996 by the Federal
                   European Communities (*)                         Republic of Germany, represented by Bernd Kloke,
(Applications for interim measures — Social policy —                Oberregierungsrat, of the Federal Ministry of Economic
Community measures to assist the elderly — Community                Affairs, and Michael Schiitte, Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus
       measures to combat poverty and social exclusion)             Westrick Stegemann, Brussels .
                          96/C 354/27
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    — declare Commission Decision COM(96)1646 def. of
                                                                        29 May 1996 on aid from Niedersachsen to JAKO
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            Jadekost GmbH & Co. KG void;
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R: United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents:             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
John Collins and Derrick Wyatt ), supported by Federal
Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and Bernd
Kloke ), against Commission of the European Communities             Infringement of the right to be heard : the Commission did
                                                                    not make available to Niedersachsen or the Federal
 ( Agents : Peter Oliver and Maria Patakia ) — application for
suspension of operation of the decisions or acts comprised          Republic of Germany the observations submitted by
or referred to in the Commission circular of 2 May 1996             competitors of Jadekost which apparently influenced the
                                                                    Commission 's decision .
inviting applications for Commission funding of measures
to assist the elderly and in the Commission circular received
by the United Kingdom authorities on 15 May 1 996 inviting          Breach of essential procedural requirements ( Article 173 ,
applications for Commission funding of measures to                  second paragraph, of the EC Treaty ): the Commission's
combat poverty and social exclusion, or for interim                 investigation of the facts was inadequate and its account of
measures — the President of the Court made an order on              them in the decision is inaccurate .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 1996 in Case C-318/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations - Public works contracts - Failure to publish a tender notice)

text:
 No C 180/ 12         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 28 March 1996                                                        of 25 April 1996
 in Case C-318/94: Commission of the European                        in Case       C-274/93 : Commission of the European
      Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ! )                     Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( ï )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Public works contracts —           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
              Failure to publish a tender notice)                    implement Council Directive 86/609/EEC — Protection of
                          { 96/C 180/23 )                            animals used for experimental and other scientific
                                                                                purposes)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/24 )
               (Language of tbe case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Frencb)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-274/93 : Commission of the European
In Case C-318/94 : Commission of the European                        Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis ) v . Grand Duchy of
 Communities (Agents : Hendrik van Lier and, initially,              Luxembourg — application for a declaration that, by not
Angela Bardenhewer, and, subsequently, Claudia Schmidt)              adopting, within the prescribed period, all the measures
v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and            necessary to comply with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
Gereon Thiele ) — application for a declaration that, the            24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
Waterways and Navigation Office, Emden having awarded                regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
the public works contract for the dredging of the lower Ems          States relating to the protection of animals used for
between Papenburg and Oldersum by negotiated procedure               experimental and other scientific purposes, the Grand
without prior publication of a tender notice in the Official        Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     under Article 25 of that Directive and under Articles 5 and
Journal ofthe European Communities, the Federal Republic
of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council        189 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
Directive 71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the                composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G.
coordination of procedures for the award of public works            Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn
contracts ( OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 682 ), as  and J. L. Murray, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ;
amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989             H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
( OJ No L 210, 1989 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),         25 April 1996 , in which it:
composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the Chamber),
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), L. Sevon           1 . Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March               2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                          costs .
1996 , in which it:
                                                                    ( ] ) OJ No C 168 , 19 . 6 . 1993 .
1 . Declares that, the Waterways and Navigation Office,
    Emden having awarded the public works contract for
    the dredging of the lower Ems between Papenburg and
     Oldersum by negotiated procedure without prior
    publication of a tender notice in the Official Journal of                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    the European Communities, the Federal Republic of                                         ( Fifth Chamber )
    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    Council Directive 71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971                                            of 25 April 1996
    concerning the coordination of procedures for the               in     Case C-87/94: Commission of the European
    award of public works contracts, as amended by                               Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( J )
    Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989.
                                                                    (Public contracts — Transport sector — Directive
                                                                                90/531/EEC)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/25 )
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
    costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-87/94, Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v. Kingdom of


title: Case T-558/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Atlas v OHIM — Couleurs de Tollens-Agora (ARTIS)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/16

         Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Atlas v OHIM — Couleurs de Tollens-Agora (ARTIS)
   (Case T-558/11)
   2012/C 13/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Republic of Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Couleurs de Tollens-Agora S.a.s. (Clichy, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action well founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2011, served on the applicant on 7 September 2011, in Case R 1253/2010-1;

               —

               in the alternative, amend the contested decision by granting registration of the mark ‘ARTIS’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Atlas sp. z o.o.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘ARTIS’ for goods in Classes 2 and 17 — application No 6158761

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Couleurs de Tollens-Agora S.a.s.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French word mark ‘ARTIS’ registered under No 93 484 880 for goods in Classes 1 and 19

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) with regard to establishing the similarity of the trade marks and the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-396/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 September 2006 — Eivind F. Kramme v SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 September 2006 — Eivind F. Kramme v SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S
   (Case C-396/06)
   (2006/C 294/52)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Østre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eivind F. Kramme

      Defendant: SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is there an extraordinary circumstance when an aircraft is taken out of operation due to technical problems, with the result that a flight is cancelled (see Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, which reasonable measures for the purposes of the Regulation must an air carrier then take to avoid flight cancellations due to technical problems?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, has an air carrier then taken all reasonable measures to avoid cancellation for the purposes of the Regulation if it can be established that there were no aircraft available for use for the flight in respect of which an aircraft which was taken out of operation due to technical problems was scheduled to be used?

               4.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is it relevant that the documentation concerning the technical problems relied on by the air carrier originates solely from the air carrier itself?


title: Case T-33/09: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2011 — Portugal v Commission (Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Penalty payment — Claim for payment — Repeal of the legislation at issue)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2011 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-33/09) (1)

   (Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Penalty payment - Claim for payment - Repeal of the legislation at issue)
   2011/C 145/39
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and J.A. de Oliveira, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, P. Guerra e Andrade and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7419 final of 25 November 2008, requiring payment of the penalty payments due pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I-1

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 7419 final of 25 November 2008;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-143/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke v Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH (Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement — Imported medicinal products not authorised in the importing State — Prohibition of advertising — Directive 2001/83/EC)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke v Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH
   (Case C-143/06) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement - Imported medicinal products not authorised in the importing State - Prohibition of advertising - Directive 2001/83/EC)
   (2007/C 315/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke

      Defendant: Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the third indent of Article 86(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Scope of application — National rules prohibiting an importer from sending pharmacies price lists of medicinal products which, although not authorised on the national market, may even so be imported
   Operative part of the judgment
   A prohibition on advertising such as that laid down by Paragraph 8 of the Law on the advertising of medicines (Heilmittelwerbegesetz) must be assessed in the light not of the provisions on advertising of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, but of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. Article 28 EC and Article 11 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area preclude such a prohibition, in so far as it applies to the distribution to pharmacists of lists of non-approved medicinal products, the importation of which from another Member State or a non-Member State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area is authorised only on an exceptional basis, which contain no information other than that concerning the trade name, packaging size, dose and price of those medicinal products.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case T-196/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — TerreStar Europe v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/19

         Action brought on 25 May 2009 — TerreStar Europe v Commission
   (Case T-196/09)
   2009/C 167/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TerreStar Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Olofsson, lawyer, J. Killick, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               take such other of further steps as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 3746 final/2 of 13 May 2009, regarding selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) adopted in application of the Decision No 626/2008/EC (1) in so far as it rejects the application of the applicant.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, it submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that TerreStar did not meet the required milestones. The applicant claims that the inconsistencies between the information and a lack of evidence in completion of one of the milestone as found by the Commission were due to a misunderstanding of the information submitted and could have been cleared up on a simple request by the Commission.
   Second, the applicant contends that the Commission acted in breach of the principle of good administration and the principle of proportionality by failing to request clarification and to review the clarifications voluntarily submitted by TerreStar.
   Third, in the alternative, the applicant claims that the contested decision lacks adequate reasoning.

      (1)  Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15)


title: Case C-293/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland
   (Case C-293/17)
   (2017/C 293/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA, Vereniging Leefmilieu

      Defendants: College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg, College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can an activity which is not covered by the concept of ‘project’ as referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment … because it is not a physical intervention in the natural surroundings be a project as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora … because the activity may have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site?

               2.

               If it is assumed that the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface is a project, and in the event that it was carried out lawfully before Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … became applicable to a Natura 2000 site, and that it is still being carried out, must it then be assessed to be one and the same project, even if the fertilising did not always take place on the same tracts of land, in the same quantities and using the same techniques?
               Is it relevant, for the purposes of the assessment of whether this constitutes one and the same project, that the nitrogen deposition caused by the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface did not increase after Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … became applicable to the Natura 2000 site?

               3.

               Does Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … preclude legislation which provides that an activity which is inextricably linked to a project and which must therefore also be assessed to be a project, such as the grazing of cattle by a dairy farm, is exempted from the permit requirement, with the result that no individual authorisation is required for that activity, it being assumed that the effects of the activity which has been permitted without authorisation were appropriately assessed before that legislation was adopted?

                           3(a)

                           Does Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … preclude legislation which provides that a certain category of projects, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, is exempted from the permit requirement and is thus permitted without individual authorisation, it being assumed that the effects of the activity which has been permitted without authorisation were appropriately assessed before that legislation was adopted?

               4.

               Does the appropriate assessment which formed the basis of the exemption from the permit requirement for the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, which was based on the actual and expected extent and intensity of those activities, and the outcome of which is that on average an increase in nitrogen deposition by those activities can be ruled out, meet the requirements which Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … lays down in that regard?

                           4(a)

                           Is it important in this regard that there is a connection between the exemption from the permit requirement and the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 (Integrated Approach to Nitrogen 2015-2021; ‘the PAS’) which is premised on a decrease in the total nitrogen deposition in respect of nitrogen-sensitive ecological features in the Natura 2000 sites, and that deposition development in the Natura 2000 sites is monitored annually in the context of the PAS, and that, if the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, any necessary adjustments are made?

               5.

               May the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC …, which was made for a programme such as the PAS, take account of the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps for existing areas of habitat types and habitats, which are taken in connection with the obligations arising from Article 6(1) and (2) of … Directive 92/43/EEC …?

                           5(a)

                           If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps be taken into account in an appropriate assessment for a programme if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, those measures have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved?

                     Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those measures based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the implementation and the outcomes of those measures be monitored and, if it transpires that the effects are less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

               6.

               May the positive effects of the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition which might become apparent during the period in which the PAS applies be taken into account in the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC …?
               Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those developments based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition be monitored and, if it transpires that the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

               7.

               May restoration measures taken in the context of a programme such as the PAS and aimed at preventing a particular harmful ecological factor, such as nitrogen deposition, from having adverse effects for existing areas of habitat types or habitats be regarded as protective measures as referred to in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 May 2014, Briels and Others, C-521/12, EU:C:2014:330, which may be taken into account in an appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of … Directive 92/43/EEC …?

                           7(a)

                           If Question 7 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of protective measures which may be taken into account in the appropriate assessment be taken into account if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, they had not yet been implemented and their positive effect had not yet been achieved?

                     Is it important in that respect, assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those measures based on the best scientific knowledge in that regard, that the implementation and the results of the measures be monitored, and, if this indicates that the results are less favourable than assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments take place if necessary?

               8.

               Is the power to impose obligations referred to in Article 2.4 of the Wet natuurbescherming (Netherlands Law on Nature Conservation), which the competent authority must apply if, having regard to the conservation objectives, a Natura 2000 site so requires, an adequate preventive instrument in order to be able to implement Article 6(2) of … Directive 92/43/EEC … in respect of the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/40

         Election of the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
   (2007/C 269/68)
   At a meeting on 17 September 2007, the Judges of the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, elected Judge Marc Jaeger as President of the Court of First Instance for the period from 17 September 2007 to 31 August 2010.


title: Joined Cases C-182/11 and C-183/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno (C-182/11), Comune di Varese, Comune di Solbiate (C-183/11), Comune di Varese (Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Contracting authority exercising over a legally distinct successful tenderer control similar to that exercised over its own departments — No obligation to carry out a tendering procedure in accordance with the rules of European Union law ( ‘in-house’ award) — Successful tenderer controlled jointly by several local authorities — Conditions for the applicability of an in-house award)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Econord SpA v Comune di Cagno (C-182/11), Comune di Varese, Comune di Solbiate (C-183/11), Comune di Varese
   (Joined Cases C-182/11 and C-183/11) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Contracting authority exercising over a legally distinct successful tenderer control similar to that exercised over its own departments - No obligation to carry out a tendering procedure in accordance with the rules of European Union law (‘in-house’ award) - Successful tenderer controlled jointly by several local authorities - Conditions for the applicability of an in-house award)
   2013/C 26/12
   Language of the cases: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Econord SpA

      Defendants: Comune di Cagno (C-182/11), Comune di Varese, Comune di Solbiate (C-183/11), Comune di Varese

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Award without a call for tenders — Contract for the provision of urban hygiene services awarded by two public authorities, outside any formal procedure for the award of public procurement contracts, to a company in which the contracting authorities hold share capital — No effective control exercised by those authorities over the company providing the services

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where, in their capacity as contracting authority, a number of public authorities jointly establish an entity with responsibility for carrying out their public service mission, or where a public authority subscribes to such an entity, the condition established by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the effect that, in order to be exempted from their obligation to initiate a public tendering procedure in accordance with the rules of European Union law, those authorities must jointly exercise over that entity control similar to the control they exercise over their own departments, is fulfilled where each of those authorities not only holds capital in that entity, but also plays a role in its managing bodies.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-18/06: Action brought on  23 January 2006  — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/32

         Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM
   (Case T-18/06)
   (2006/C 86/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by J.-C. Gaedertz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 November 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Alles, was uns verbindet’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Application No 3 648 441

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the mark applied for is distinctive in respect of the designated goods and services and is not of a descriptive nature, because the combination of words is unusual and uncommon in relation to the goods and services claimed.


title: Case C-221/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/59/EC — Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Article 9(1) — Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products — National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes — Justification — Protection of public health — World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-221/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - Justification - Protection of public health - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)
   2010/C 113/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

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

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — National law imposing minimum and maximum retail prices for manufactured tobacco

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing minimum retail prices for cigarettes, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

               2.

               Declares that, by not providing the information required by the European Commission in order to enable it to fulfil its task of monitoring compliance with Directive 95/59, as amended by Directive 2002/10, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-278/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Susanne Meyer and Others v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Susanne Meyer and Others v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-278/17)
   (2017/C 239/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Susanne Meyer, Sophie Meyer, Jan Meyer

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-168/99: Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/24                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.10.1999
Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral de                     represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an
Alava against the Commission of the European Communi-                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
                                   ties                                    & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
                            (Case T-168/99)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in the
                            (1999/C 281/45)                                     application and;
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                            including those of the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral
de Alava, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña                The applicant, a public limited company incorporated in
Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service c/o                 England, has already raised similar issues in four applications
Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brus-                    against the Commission, currently pending before the Court
sels.                                                                      of First Instance of the European Communities (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                By the present application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                           Commission has purported to approve aid to be granted to
— annul the Commission Decision of 31 March 1999 in so                     the Spanish coal mining industry in 1999. According to the
     far as it initiates a State aid proceeding against the financial      applicant, the contested decision should be declared void in
     measures provided for in Normas Forales (regional regu-               whole or in part for the following reasons:
     lations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 and requires the Spanish
     State to suspend the payment of sums in pursuance thereof             — the Commission has no competence to approve the aid
     to the company Ramondı́n S.A.;                                             under Article 1(1) of the Code unless the aid complies with
                                                                                Articles 2 to 9 of the Code;
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                           — the approval of State aid infringed an essential procedural
                                                                                requirement and/of infringed the ECSC Treaty and/or a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 rule of law relating to its application;
                                                                           — the Commission has failed properly or at all to provide in
By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of                   the contested decision the reasons for authorising the aid
the Commission by which it found that certain financial                         in several cases.
measures adopted in relation to Ramondı́n S.A. constitute
State aid incompatible with the common market.
                                                                           (1) See cases T-110/98 (OJ C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 38) ; T-111/98 (OJ
                                                                               C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 39) ; T-12/99 (OJ C 86 of 27/3/99, p. 25) ;
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                       T-63/99 (OJ C 160 of 5/6/99, p. 26).
advanced in Case T-127/95 Territorio Histórico de Alava,
Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission.
                                                                           Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc against
       the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-171/99)
                            (Case T-170/99)                                                         (1999/C 281/47)
                            (1999/C 281/46)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew Levitt, with an
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc
European Communities on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc,                    Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.


title: Case C-466/08: Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/21

         Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-466/08)
   (2008/C 327/36)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and H. Støvlbæk)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC into domestic law expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 255 of 30.9.2005.


title: Case C-446/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Modena (Italy)) — Alberto Severi, in his own name, and as legal representative of Cavazzuti e figli SpA, now known as Grandi Salumifici Italiani SpA v Regione Emilia-Romagna (Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer — Labelling likely to mislead the purchaser as to the origin or provenance of the foodstuff — Generic names within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Effect)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Modena (Italy)) — Alberto Severi, in his own name, and as legal representative of Cavazzuti e figli SpA, now known as Grandi Salumifici Italiani SpA v Regione Emilia-Romagna
   (Case C-446/07) (1)

   (Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer - Labelling likely to mislead the purchaser as to the origin or provenance of the foodstuff - Generic names within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Effect)
   2009/C 267/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale civile di Modena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alberto Severi, in his own name, and as legal representative of Cavazzuti e figli SpA, now known as Grandi Salumifici Italiani SpA

      Defendant: Regione Emilia-Romagna

      Intervening party: Associazione fra Produttori per la Tutela del ‘Salame Felino’

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Modena — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06 — Name of a food product which is evocative of a place not registered as a PDO or PGI within the meaning of that regulation — Whether it is possible for producers who have used that name in good faith and uninterruptedly before the entry into force of the regulation to use it in the common market — ‘Salame Felino’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2796/2000 of 20 December 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the designation of a foodstuff containing geographical references, which has been the subject of an application for registration as a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication within the meaning of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, cannot be regarded as generic pending the possible forwarding of the application for registration to the Commission of the European Communities by the national authorities. A designation cannot be presumed to be generic, within the meaning of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, for as long as the Commission has not taken a decision on the application for registration of the designation, as the case may be, by rejecting it on the specific ground that that designation has become generic.

               2.

               Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, read with Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, must be interpreted as meaning that the designation of a foodstuff containing geographical references, which is not registered as a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, may legitimately be used, on condition that the labelling of the product so named does not mislead the average, reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect consumer. For the purpose of assessing whether that is the case, national courts may have regard to the length of time during which the name has been used. By contrast, any good faith on the part of the manufacturer or retailer is irrelevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-380/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Bianchin v OHIM — Grotto (GASOLINE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark GASOLINE — Earlier Community figurative mark GAS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Bianchin v OHIM — Grotto (GASOLINE)
   (Case T-380/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark GASOLINE - Earlier Community figurative mark GAS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 38/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luciano Bianchin (Asolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Grotto SpA (Chiuppano, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 July 2009 (Case R 1455/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Grotto SpA and Luciano Bianchin.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Luciano Bianchin to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-160/03: Action brought on 8 April 2003 by Kingdom of Spain against Eurojust

text:
C 146/30                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
       The Court of First Instance’s assessment in the contested            The applicant claims that the Court should:
       judgment relates exclusively to the Commission decision
       of 1996, although this decision is manifestly not the
       instrument contested at first instance.                              1.   annul, in the following calls for applications:
       It is clear that Article 12 of Directive 75/319, on which
       the 1996 decision is based, and which is examined by the                  —    call for applications for the position of Data-
       Court of First Instance, is not the legal basis for the 2000                   protection officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/07 (2003/C 34 A/01)
       decision.                                                                      OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;
       Moreover, Article 12 is essentially assessed by way of a
       comparison with Article 10(2) of Directive 75/319,
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of Legal officer.
       although the latter does not form the legal basis for the
                                                                                Ref.: 03/EJ/11 (2003/C 34 A/05) OJ C 34 A of
       2000 decision either, or of the 1996 decision, examined
                                                                                13.2.2003;
       by the Court of First Instance.
       Thus, the Court of First Instance’s conclusion that the
       Commission was not competent to adopt the 2000                            —    call for applications for the position of Press officer.
       decision is based on an assessment relating to a decision                      Ref.: 03/EJ/13 (2003/C 34 A/07) OJ C 34 A of
       which was not contested at first instance and is founded                       13.2.2003;
       essentially on provisions, namely Articles 10 and 12 of
       Directive 75/319, which do not form the legal basis for
       the 2000 decision. In the appellant’s view, this assessment               —    call for applications for the position of Secretary to
       constitutes in itself a failure to define the status of                        the General Administration. Ref.: 03/EJ/14 (2003/
       Article 15a(1) of Directive 75/319 and thus a failure to                       C 34 A/08) OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;
       take account of it.
       In the appellant’s view, the two errors described above                   —    call for applications for the position of Librarian/
       are fundamental and linked to the extent that they vitiate                     Archivist. Ref.: 03/EJ/12 (2003/C 34 A/06) OJ C 34
       the entire legal assessment leading the Court of First                         A of 13.2.2003;
       Instance to deduce that the Commission was not com-
       petent to adopt the 2000 decision.
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of Accounting
       Lastly, and solely in the alternative, the appellant main-                     officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/08 (2003/C 34 A/02) OJ C 34 A
       tains that the Court of First Instance’s reasoning to the                      of 13.2.2003;
       effect that Article 15a of Directive 75/319 does not cover
       marketing authorisations harmonised by way of the
       purely consultative procedure within the meaning of                       —    call for applications for the position of IT-informat-
       Articles 12 and 13 of the directive also constitutes a                         ics expert (webmaster) of the European judicial
       misinterpretation of that article.                                             network. Ref.: 03/EJ/09 (2003/C 34 A/03) OJ C 34 A
                                                                                of 13.2.2003,
( 1) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000, p. 29.
( 2) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
     approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or                 the paragraph referring to the documents to be submitted
     Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products            in English by applicants submitting their application in
     (OJ L 147, 9.6.1975, p. 13).                                                another language; and the paragraphs relating to the
                                                                                linguistic knowledge required of candidates, from each of
                                                                                the calls for applications set out below:
                                                                                —    in the call for applications for the position of Data-
                                                                                protection officer, as condition No 17: ‘Excellent
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by Kingdom of Spain                                    knowledge of English and French. Ability to work in
                          against Eurojust                                            other European Union languages would be an asset’.
                          (Case C-160/03)                                        —    in the call for applications for the position of Law
                                                                                officer, as condition No 19: ‘Excellent knowledge of
                          (2003/C 146/50)                                             English and French. Ability to work in other Euro-
                                                                                pean Union languages would be an asset’.
An action against Eurojust was brought before the Court of                       —    in the call for applications for the position of Press
Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2003 by the                            officer, as condition No 12: ‘Ability to speak at least
Kingdom of Spain, represented by L. Fraguas Gadea, with an                            English and French. Knowledge of other official
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                    European Union languages would be an asset’.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/31
      —     in the call for applications for the position of               Action brought on 9 April 2003 by the Commission
            Secretary to the General Administration, as con-               of the European Communities against the Republic of
            dition No 9: ‘Thorough knowledge of English and                                               Austria
            French would be an asset, as well as a satisfactory
            knowledge of other Community languages’.
                                                                                (Case C-164/03)
      —     in the call for applications for the position of IT-
            informatics expert (webmaster) of the European
            judicial network, as condition No 6: ‘Good know-                                        (2003/C 146/51)
            ledge of English is essential; in particular, the ability
            to speak at least two additional official European
            Community languages, including French, would be
            an asset’.
                                                                           An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
2.    order the defendant body to pay the costs.                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Dr Ulrich Wölker, Commission Legal Adviser,
                                                                           and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant available to the
                                                                           Commission Legal Service under an exchange scheme, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Breach of the Staff Regulations and of the Conditions
      of Employment of Other Servants of the European                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
      Communities
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
      According to Article 30 of Council Decision 2002/                          the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
      187/JHA of 28 February 2002 establishing Eurojust to                       provisions necessary in order to implement Council
      strengthen the fight against serious forms of crime ( 1),                  Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
      Eurojust staff are to be subject to the rules and regulations              85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
      applicable to the officials and other servants of the                      public and private projects on the environment (1) in the
      European Communities.                                                      provinces of Burgenland and Salzburg, the Republic of
                                                                                Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      Under Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment,                          directive;
      candidates are only required to have a thorough know-
      ledge of one language and a satisfactory knowledge of
      another.                                                             2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
—     Breach of the linguistic rules of Eurojust
      Article 31 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA provides
      that the official linguistic arrangements of the Union are           Pleas in law and main arguments
      to apply to Eurojust proceedings. No provision of the
      decision expressly states that the working languages of
      Eurojust are to be English and French.
                                                                           In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                           which provides that a directive is binding as to the result to be
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination                        achieved upon each Member State, the Member States are
                                                                           obliged to comply with the time-limit for implementation laid
      The requirement that part of the documents to be                     down in directives. The period for implementation laid down
      submitted should be drawn up in English and, most of                 in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March
      all, the requirement of excellent knowledge of English               1999 without the Republic of Austria having adopted the
      and French amounts to clear discrimination grounds of                necessary provisions for the provinces of Burgenland and
      nationality, prohibited by Article 12 EC.                            Salzburg.
( 1) OJ 2002 L 63, p. 1.                                                   (1 ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.


C 188/24              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-              on 14 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sanofi
shof by order of that court of 25 March 1999 in the case              Winthrop SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Val-de-Marne,
of Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG against Zentrale                    on the validity, in the light of the principle of proportionality,
        zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.                    of Council Decision 89/847/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising
                                                                      the French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the
                                                                      second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Direc-
                        (Case C-169/99)                               tive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                      Member States relating to turnover taxes. (1)
                        (1999/C 188/53)
                                                                      (1) OJ L 239, p. 21.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) — First Civil Chamber of 25 March
1999, received at the Court Registry on 5 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH &
Co. KG against Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbew-
erbs e.V. on the following question:                                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/55)
Is the term ‘practical reasons’ in the second sentence of
Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the                By order of 22 March 1999 the President of the Court of
approximation of the laws of the Member State relating to             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
cosmetic products (1) to be interpreted as also permitting the        from the register of Case C-25/98: (reference for a preliminary
inclusion of prescribed warnings in several languages, where          ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Santiago de Compost-
the manufacturer or marketer of cosmetic products considers           ela): Dorinda Teresa López Tourı́s v Instituto Nacional de
it desirable on economic grounds and to enhance the market-           Empleo (INEM) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
ability of the products in the Community, if as a result the full     (INSS).
warning appears in a clearly legible format on an enclosed
leaflet only, with the packaging and container simply fur-
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.
nishing abbreviated information for lack of space? Specifically,
is it permissible for the packaging and container to carry not
the full warning but only abbreviated information where a
company, for the reasons given above, considers it desirable
to market its products in a uniform getup in the languages of
the nine different countries where the product is sold (which
include eight EU Member States)?
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-32/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/56)
( 1) (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169) as amended by Council Directive
     88/667/EEC (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46).                               By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-32/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif (Administrative Court), Melun (Fifth
Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 3 Decem-
ber 1998 in the case of Sanofi Winthrop SA v Directeur                       Removal from the register of Case C-227/98 (1)
             des Services Fiscaux de Val-de-Marne
                                                                                (1999/C 188/57)
                        (Case C-181/99)                               By order of 15 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (1999/C 188/54)                               from the register of Case C-227/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Ireland.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admini-
stratif (Administrative Court), Melun (Fifth Chamber), France,
of 3 December 1998, which was received at the Court Registry


title: Case F-35/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 September 2014  — DM v BEREC (Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Conditions of engagement — Medical examination on engagement — Article 100 of the CEOS — Deferment of medical cover — Contract terminated at the end of the probationary period — Claims for annulment which have become devoid of purpose — Deferment of medical cover on the engagement of the member of staff concerned by another agency of the European Union — No effect — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/54

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — DM v BEREC
   (Case F-35/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Conditions of engagement - Medical examination on engagement - Article 100 of the CEOS - Deferment of medical cover - Contract terminated at the end of the probationary period - Claims for annulment which have become devoid of purpose - Deferment of medical cover on the engagement of the member of staff concerned by another agency of the European Union - No effect - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 421/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: DM (represented by: initially, D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (represented by: M. Chiodi, Agent, D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to defer the applicant’s medical cover from the date of his entry into service and of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the dispute.

               2.

               The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by DM.

      (1)  OJ C 138 of 12/05/2012, p. 37.


title: Case T-107/08: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council and Commission (Dumping — Imports of silico-manganese originating in China and Kazakhstan — Action for annulment — Export price — Comparison between export price and normal value — Calculation of the undercutting margin — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council and Commission
      (Case T-107/08) (1)

      (Dumping - Imports of silico-manganese originating in China and Kazakhstan - Action for annulment - Export price - Comparison between export price and normal value - Calculation of the undercutting margin - Non-contractual liability)
      (2012/C 25/91)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO (Aktobe, Kazakhstan); and ENRC Marketing AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented initially by L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

         Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and G. Berrisch, lawyer); and European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendants: Euroalliages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and N. McNelis, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application, first, for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 of 4 December 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silico-manganese originating in the People’s Republic of China and Kazakhstan and terminating the proceeding on imports of silico-manganese originating in Ukraine (OJ 2007 L 317, p. 5), in so far as it concerns imports of silico-manganese produced by Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, and, second, for damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 of 4 December 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silico-manganese originating in the People’s Republic of China and Kazakhstan and terminating the proceeding on imports of silico-manganese originating in Ukraine in so far as that article applies to imports of silico-manganese produced by Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing AG to bear half of their own costs and to bear the costs of the European Commission;

                  4.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear half of the costs of Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing, in addition to its own costs;

                  5.

                  Orders Euroalliages to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case C-255/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland
   (Case C-255/15)
   (2015/C 294/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Steef Mennens

      Defendant: Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

      Questions referred

               I.

               Is Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a ‘ticket’ is the document by which the passenger is (also) entitled to be transported on the flight on which he was downgraded, irrespective of whether further flights, such as connecting flights or return flights, are also indicated on that document?

               II.

                           a.

                           If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
                           Is Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be further interpreted as meaning that the ‘price of the ticket’ is the amount which the passenger has paid for all of the flights indicated on the ticket, even if the downgrading occurred on only one of the flights?

                           b.

                           If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
                           For the purposes of determining the amount which forms the basis for the reimbursement under Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must account be taken of the airline company’s published price for transportation, in the class booked, on the section affected by the downgrade, or must the quotient resulting from the distance of the section affected by the downgrade and the total length of the flight be determined and then multiplied by the total flight price?

               III.

               Is Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be further interpreted as meaning that the ‘price of the ticket’ is only the price of the flight alone, to the exclusion of taxes and charges?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-190/09: Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/33

         Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-190/09)
   2009/C 180/57
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Khatzigiannis, A. Margelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by prohibiting the distribution and sale of biofuels produced from genetically modified plants and by enacting section 6 of Law 66(I) of 2005 without previous notification to the European Commission, the Republic of Cyprus is in breach of its obligations under Article 28 EC and Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC (1);

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Cypriot Law No 66(I) of the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport transposes into Cypriot law Directive 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other reusable fuels for transport. However, section 6 of that Cypriot law contains a clause pursuant to which the distribution and sale of biofuels produced from genetically modified plants is prohibited.
   The cultivation of approved varieties of genetically modified (GM) plants in the European Union is lawful on the basis of Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Nevertheless, processed fuels produced from genetically modified plants do not fall within the scope of application of that legislation and consequently the compatibility of the clause with Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty falls to be examined.
   As regards infringement of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty, the Commission considers, first, that the Cypriot prohibition is not necessary to protect any kind of public interest and, second, that the national rules which prohibit a product absolutely are contrary to the principle of proportionality.
   As regards infringement of Directive 98/34/EC, the Commission considers that section 6 of Law No 66(I) 2005 constitutes a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1 thereof, and does not fall within the exemption of Article 10(1), first indent. Consequently, the Cypriot authorities were required to inform the Commission of the above provision. Since the Cypriot authorities enacted the provision without prior notification, they were in breach of their obligation under Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p. 37.


25 . 3 . 95         | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 74/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case T-248/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/35 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-248/94 : Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian
Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-24/95 )
                           ( 95/C 74/33 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-249/94 ( )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/36 )
An action against the Council of the European Union and                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Communities on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Jacobsen, Jarplund-Weding ( Federal Republic of Germany),             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
represented by Dr. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                 T-249/94: Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Communities .
of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendants to pay compensation to the
     applicant for the period of five milk years from 1 April
     1988 in the amount of DM 24 540, together with                          Removal from the register of Case T-250/94 ( )
     interest of 8% from 17 December 1983 .                                                       ( 95/C 74/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-20/94 .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-250/94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-l 24/93 ( )
                            ( 95/C 74/34 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-251/94 ( x )
               (Language of the case: German)                                                     ( 95/C 74/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 20 January 1995 the President of the First
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First                  By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-l 24/9 3 : Georg Werner v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                              T-251 /94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
 (M OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-63/06: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA) (Public service contracts — EMCDDA tender procedure — Supply of software programming and consultancy services — Rejection of a submitted tender — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Transparency — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/30

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA)
      (Case T-63/06) (1)

      (Public service contracts - EMCDDA tender procedure - Supply of software programming and consultancy services - Rejection of a submitted tender - Award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency - Principle of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2010/C 288/56)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti, Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction of 5 December 2005 to reject the bid submitted by the applicant in response to a call for tenders for the supply of software programming and consultancy services (OJ 2005 S 187) and to award the contract to another tenderer or, in the alternative, a claim 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 its own costs and to pay those of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).

         (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-287/05: Action brought on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler and two other officials against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/35

         Action brought on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler and two other officials against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case T-287/05)
   (2005/C 229/74)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 2005 by Idoia Bengoa Geisler, Cristina López Roca and Maria Manuela Farrajota, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities in so far as those decisions fix their recruitment grade pursuant to Articles 12 and 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, officials of the Court of Justice recruited after 1 May 2004 as successful candidates in the competitions for which the notices had been published before that date, challenge the alleged discrimination resulting from the fact that the conditions under which they have been graded, in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials, are different to those of successful candidates in the same competitions recruited before that amendment to the Staff Regulations. They submit, in support of their application, the same pleas in law and arguments as those adduced in Case T-130/05 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005, p. 38.


title: Case T-393/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Decision of the Commission imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application to suspend operation)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/20

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission
   (Case T-393/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Decision of the Commission imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application to suspend operation)
   2011/C 282/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (Hamm, Germany); Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG (Hamm); and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: C. Stadler and N. Tkatchenko, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayr, agents, assisted by R. van der Hout, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel), as amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, in so far as a fine was thereby imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The obligation of Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG to provide the Commission with a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate collection of the fines imposed on them under Article 2(1) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel) as amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, is suspended under the following conditions

                           (a)

                           by 30 June 2011, Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the Commission the sum of EUR [confidential] million;

                           (b)

                           from 15 July 2011 until further notice they shall pay to the Commission monthly instalments of EUR 300 000 (on the 15th of each month), but not beyond delivery of judgment in the main proceedings.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-141/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Dogbo v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/23

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Dogbo v Council
   (Case T-141/11)
   2011/C 130/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Blé Brunot Dogbo (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Blé Brunot DOGBO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Blé Brunot DOGBO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.