title: Action brought on 19 March 1997 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain (Case C-114/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 166/5
      acceptance in more than 50% of the trade circles                  Such a specific prohibition is contrary to Article 4 of
      concerned is required and is to be demonstrated,                  Directive    90/396/EEC       inasmuch     as it constitutes an
      compatible with that provision ?                                  obstacle to the putting into service of appliances to which
                                                                        the directive applies and which conform to the essential
                                                                        requirements provided for therein.
      Do requirements follow from this provision as to the
      manner in which descriptive character acquired by use
      is to be ascertained ?                                            The argument that Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 is
                                                                        compatible with Directive 90/396/EEC on account of the
C ) First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate          safety requirements on which it is based is unfounded .
    the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ( 89/         Indeed, the essential requirements laid down by the
     104/EEC ) ( OJ No L 40, 1989, p. 1 ).                              directive in respect of the installation and use of
                                                                        appliances burning gaseous fuels — including of the ' open'
                                                                        type — are exhaustive in that they conform to all the
                                                                        relevant safety requirements and are mandatory in nature .
                                                                        In the present case, the national authority is no longer
                                                                        able to maintain in force nor to adopt national provisions
                                                                        which require compliance with additional requirements,
Action brought on 18 March 1997 by the Commission of                    otherwise the achievement and the functioning of the
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                internal market would be unlawfully hindered.
                            Case C-l 12/97
                             ( 97/C 166/08 )                            The argument that Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 should
                                                                        be regarded as a lawful derogation under Article 36 and
                                                                        100a (4 ), or Article 129a of the EC Treaty from the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before               principle of the free movement of goods is also
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     unfounded .
18 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli and Hans
                                                                        (') OJ No L 196 , 26 . 7. 1990 , p . 15 .
Stovlbaek, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 19 March 1997 by Commission of the
— declare that, by establishing and maintaining a system                     European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
      which requires the installation in inhabited areas only                                    (Case C-l 14/97)
      of 'shielded' heaters, thus impliedly prohibiting the
      installation of heaters of any other type which comply                                       ( 97/C 166/09 )
      with Directive 90/396/EEC ( 1 ), the Italian Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law,
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           on 17 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by A. Caeiro and F. Castillo de
                                                                         la Torre, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 5 ( 10 ) of Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica
 ( Decree of the President of the Republic ) of 26 August                The applicant claims that the Court should:
 1993 (hereinafter DPR 412/93 ) provides that in cases of
 new installations or restructuring of heating systems which
 involve the installation of individual heaters, except in               — declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 7, 8 and
 cases of mere replacement, heaters insulated from the                       10 of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992 0 ), in so far
 inhabited area may be used or, where installation is                        as those provisions make the grant of authorization to
 external or in suitable industrial premises, appliances of                  carry on private security activities in the case of
 any type may be fitted .                                                    ' security companies' subject to the requirement of
                                                                             being constituted in Spain and the requirement that
                                                                             their directors and managers should reside in Spain
 Although Article 5 ( 10 ) of DPR 412/93 does not contain a                  and the requirement that the 'security staff should
 prohibition on the marketing of non-insulated ('open')                      possess Spanish nationality, the Kingdom of Spain has
 heaters or a general prohibition on their installation, it is               failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in
 none the less true that that provision does prohibit                        particular Articles 48 , 52 and 59,
 specifically, albeit impliedly, the fitting of such heaters in
 inhabited areas when installing anew or restructuring
 heating systems.                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/6           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                fact of playing an ancillary and preparatory part in the
                                                                   exercise of public authority does not amount to direct and
Freedom of establishment                                           specific involvement in the exercise of that authority
                                                                   within the meaning of Article 55 of the Treaty.
A condition requiring the directors of a company to reside
in the Member State in which the company is established            Authority to bear arms, although exceptional, is not a
(Article 8 of Law No 23/1992 ) amounts to discrimination           right exclusive to the security forces or other agency of
on grounds of nationality.                                         public authority and therefore it cannot be argued that
                                                                   because security personnel are so authorized this
                                                                   necessarily means that they are connected with the
The requirement that undertakings should be constituted
                                                                   exercise of public authority. Thus, the Weapons
in Spain (Article 7 of Law No 23/1992 ) is explicitly
                                                                   Regulation, approved by Royal Decree No 137/1993 of
discriminatory and entails a restriction on the right of
                                                                   29 January 1993 provides that where the circumstances
undertakings to carry on their activities through a branch
                                                                   warrant it gun licences may be issued to individuals,
or agency as expressly provided for by Article 52 of the
                                                                   including nationals of another Member State . Clearly,
EC Treaty.
                                                                   security personnel have to hold a gun licence in order to
                                                                   be able to provide their services, like any other citizen.
Where security staff are self-employed, the nationality
requirement imposed by Article 10 ( 3 ) of Law No 23/
1992 infringes Article 52 of the Treaty as well .                  Article 56 of the EC Treaty
Freedom to provide services                                        The Commission considers that it is not obvious why the
                                                                   fact that a detective or a watchman guarding premises
The effect of the condition laid down in Article 7 of Law          (pursuing that activity in a self-employed capacity) is not
No 23/1992 that the undertaking should be constituted in           Spanish but is a national of another Member State should
Spain and the condition of residence for directors laid            pose a genuine and existing threat serious enough to affect
                                                                   a fundamental social interest .
down in Article 8 is to preclude all private security
activity carried out by security firms or personnel not
established in Spain. Such requirements constitute a               The exclusion of all undertakings whose directors and
discriminatory barrier to the freedom to provide services .        managers do not reside in Spain and of all nationals of
                                                                   other Member States would seem to be based essentially
Article 55 of the EC Treaty                                        on considerations of an administrative character.
The Commission considers that the mere fact that private           Freedom of movement for workers
undertakings have been entrusted with some security
services, which services have thus for the most part been
removed from the sphere of the State, excludes the                 Since security personnel are not public officials, it does
conclusion that 'private security (...) forms a functional         not appear that Article 48 (4 ) can be applicable .
part of the security monopoly which is the State's
concern'. Furthermore, the actual wording of Law No 23/            The grounds of public policy, public security and public
1992 states that the activities of security companies and          health referred to in Article 48 ( 3 ) do not permit an entire
staff are additional and ancillary to public security              sector of activity to evade freedom of movement for
activities, without going so far as to say that they form          workers and the right to take up employment.
part of public security.
                                                                   i 1 ) Boletín Oficial del Estado ( 4 . 8 . 1992 ).
Whether various activities are connected with the exercise
of official authority does not depend on their effects or
objective but rather on the powers and courses of action
made available to the undertakings or persons carrying on
those activities. Crime prevention does not necessarily
entail a prerogative of official authority, since in certain
circumstances individuals may take action to prevent               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
crime. Moreover, crime prevention in general has not been          Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta by order of that
arrogated to security firms and staff, only the aspects            tribunal of 12 March 1997 in the proceedings brought by
concerned with protection .                                        Laura Pitkaranta, represented by her legal guardian Anne
                                                                                Pitkaranta
                                                                                ( Case C-118/97)
Nor can the special duty to assist the Fuerzas y Cuerpos
de Seguridad ( security forces ) imposed on security firms                                       97/C 166/ 10 )
and personnel in the exercise of their duties, to collaborate
with those forces and follow their orders in relation to the
objective of protection support the conclusion that they           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
act in the exercise of public authority. Every citizen has         of the European Communities by an order of the
that duty in particular circumstances . Furthermore, the           Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta ( Rural Industries


title: Case C-285/05: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Symvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes grammes, N.E. Lesvou, Blue Star Ferries v Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías, Ypourgos Aigaíou (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Maritime cabotage — Transitional period — Direct application — Directive 98/18/EC — Safety rules and standards for passenger ships — Compatibility of a national rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in respect of ships having reached a specific age)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/23

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Symvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes grammes, N.E. Lesvou, Blue Star Ferries v Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías, Ypourgos Aigaíou
   (Case C-285/05) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Maritime cabotage - Transitional period - Direct application - Directive 98/18/EC - Safety rules and standards for passenger ships - Compatibility of a national rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in respect of ships having reached a specific age)
   (2006/C 326/45)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Symvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes grammes, N.E. Lesvou, Blue Star Ferries

      Defendants: Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías, Ypourgos Aigaíou
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Symvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Articles 1(2), 4 and 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — Ability of individuals to rely on the regulation to challenge the validity of a national rule adopted before the end of the exemption laid down by the regulation — Interpretation of Articles 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1) — Compatibility of a national rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in respect of ships having reached a specified age
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Having regard to Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), the latter must be interpreted as not conferring rights on individuals, before 1 January 2004, in the area of cabotage with the Greek islands for regular passenger and cargo services and services provided by vessels of less than 650 gross tonnes.

               2.

               Articles 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships must be interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits absolutely ships having reached a specified age from carrying out domestic voyages, when the Member State in question has not taken measures to improve safety requirements in accordance with the procedure laid down by Article 7(4) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 243 of 1.10.2005.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2000 in Case T-58/00: Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 108/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
Hague, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amster-               1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
dam Bar, S.B. Noë, of the Hague Bar, and M.S.H. de Ranitz, of
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               2.    The applicants are to pay the costs.
at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — application
for partial suspension of operation of the Commission’s                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
decision 2000/117/EC of 26 October 1999 concerning a
proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de
Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie
(FEG and TU)) (OJ 2000 L 39, p. 1) — the President of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 14 December 2000,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.   CEF City Electrical Factors BV and CEF Holdings Ltd are                                            INSTANCE
     granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought
     by the defendant in the proceedings for interim measures.
                                                                                of 31 October 2000
2.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           in Case T-76/00 R: Bruno Farmaceutici SpA v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
3.   The costs are reserved.
                                                                           (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
                                                                           authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
                                                                           ing amfepramone — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
                                                                                Need to balance interests)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/37)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                       of 19 October 2000
                                                                           In Case T-76/00 R: Bruno Farmaceuti SpA, established in
                                                                           Rome, Essential Nutrition Ltd, established in Brough (United
in Case T-58/00: Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigin-                    Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd, established in
gen and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                       Uxbridge (United Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel SA,
                               ties (1)                                    established in Brussels, Marion Merrell SA, established in
                                                                           Puteaux (France), Marion Merrell SA, established in Barcelona
                                                                           (Spain), Sanova Pharma GmbH, established in Vienna, Temm-
(Action for annulment — Commission Regulation (EC)                         ler Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, established in Marburg (Germ-
              No 2790/1999 — Inadmissibility)                              any), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         (2001/C 108/36)                                   Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and
                                                                           B. Wägenbaur) — application for the suspension of application
                                                                           of the decision of the Commission of 9 March 2000 concern-
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           ing the withdrawal of authorisations for placing on the market
                                                                           medicinal products for human consumption containing
In Case T-58/00: Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen,                 amfepramone (C(2000) 453) — the President of the Court of
established in Brussels, Jules Appeltants, residing at Grâce-              First Instance made an order on 31 October 2000, the
Hollogne (Belgium), and Benny Corbeels, residing at Louvain                operative part of which is as follows:
(Belgium), represented by J. Van Hoof, of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    1.    The application to the applicants of the decision of the
F. Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe, v Commission of the European                            Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — application for annulment of                      authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December                           human consumption containing amfepramone (C(2000) 453)
1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to                        is suspended.
categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ
1999 L 336, p. 21) — the Court of First Instance (Third                    2.    Costs are reserved.
Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and K. Lenaerts
and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
19 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-278/17: Action brought on 10 may 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/36

         Action brought on 10 may 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)
   (Case T-278/17)
   (2017/C 213/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Schlüter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nixen Partners (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NEXEN’ — Application for registration No 13 374 152

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2017 in Case R 1570/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of February 23, 2017 in case R 1570/2016-2 and reject the opposition;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case C-597/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) v Antonio Zecca
   (Case C-597/16)
   (2017/C 063/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Respondent: Antonio Zecca

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, where a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, it precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment?

               2.

               In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the ne bis in idem principle referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must a national court take into account the thresholds for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1)

      (1)  Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 179).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2004 in Case T-231/02: Piero Gonnelli and Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Acts affecting them individually — Regulation — Marketing norms for olive oil — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   (Third Chamber)
   of 2 April 2004
   in Case T-231/02: Piero Gonnelli and Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Acts affecting them individually - Regulation - Marketing norms for olive oil - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 118/88)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-231/02: Piero Gonnelli and Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO), established in Rome (Italy), represented by U. Scuro, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and C. Loggi) – application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil (OJ 2002 L 155, p. 27) – the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               the application is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               the applicants are to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.01


title: Case C-572/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion (France) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Clément Amedée v Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion (France) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Clément Amedée v Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État
   (Case C-572/10)
   2011/C 72/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Saint-Denis de la Réunion

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Clément Amedée

      Defendants: Garde des sceaux, Ministre de la justice et des libertés, Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can the scheme put in place by Article L. 12(b) of the French Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code, as amended by Article 48 of the Law of 21 August 2003, and by Article R. 13 of that Code, as amended by Article 6 of the Decree of 26 December 2003, be regarded as giving rise to indirect discrimination, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty on [the Functioning of the] European Union, against the biological parents of children, given the proportion of men liable to fulfil the condition relating to a break in their career for a continuous period of at least two months, in particular by reason of the absence of a statutory framework allowing them to fulfil that condition by taking paid leave?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can the indirect discrimination thus established be justified by the terms of Article 6(3) of the Agreement annexed to Protocol No 14 on Social Policy [annexed to the Treaty on European Union]?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the negative, do the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) preclude the maintenance in force of Articles L. 12(b) and R. 13 of the French Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code?

               4.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second and third questions are answered in the negative, must any challenge to those articles be limited solely to the discrimination that they imply or does it relate to the impossibility for civil servants of both sexes to benefit from them?

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 April 2004 in Case T-321/01 DEP, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure — Taxation of costs)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/39

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 19 April 2004
   in Case T-321/01 DEP, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Procedure - Taxation of costs)
   (2004/C 118/85)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-321/01 DEP, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J Jonczy and S. Fries), APPLICATION for the taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2003 in Case T-321/01 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, and M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 19 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The total of the costs to be reimbursed by the Commission to the applicant in Case T-321/01 is fixed at EUR 6 750.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002


title: Case T-14/09: Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Vanhecke v Parliament

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/47

         Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Vanhecke v Parliament
   (Case T-14/09)
   (2009/C 69/104)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Frank Vanhecke (Bruges, Belgium) (represented by: R. Tournicourt and B. Siffert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the contested decision of the European Parliament of 18 November 2008, which was notified to the applicant on 30 November 2008, by which the applicant's parliamentary immunity was waived;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By letter addressed to the President of the European Parliament, the Belgian Minister for Justice requested that the applicant's parliamentary immunity be waived. According to the applicant, this request was submitted in response to an application made by the public prosecutor's office in the town of Dendermonde, which sought to prosecute the applicant on the basis of the content of an article published in a local party newspaper in the town of Sint-Niklaas of which the applicant was the responsible publisher.
   The European Parliament subsequently decided to waive the applicant's parliamentary immunity.
   In support of his application, the applicant first of all submits that, in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the members of the European Parliament enjoy, within their own respective territories, the immunities which are conferred on members of national parliaments in their respective countries. From this it follows, according to the applicant, that an application to have the immunity of a member of the European Parliament waived may be made only by the body which is authorised under national law to seek revocation of the immunity of a member of the national parliament. Consequently, an application for the institution of the procedure for lifting parliamentary immunity ought to be addressed to the Minister for Justice by the central public prosecutor's office, as this exists at the level of the Hof van beroep (Court of Appeal), and not, as has happened in the present case, by a local public prosecutor's office organised at local district level.
   The second plea in law concerns the taking of the decision within the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament. The applicant submits that the members of the Committee who took the decision on the request that the applicant's parliamentary immunity be waived either had to be present at the hearing when the applicant set out his views or had to have a true and accurate report available to them which set out the line of argument followed. The applicant claims that this was not the case here.
   Third, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of confidentiality and the obligation of secrecy. He submits in this regard that, before the final vote was taken by the Committee on Legal Affairs, the report of the committee chairperson was already available to the press.
   Fourth, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament by reason of the fact that any debate in the plenary session was made impossible.
   Fifth, the applicant alleges deficient reasoning inasmuch as the contested decision confines itself to referring to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs.
   Sixth, the applicant takes issue with the reasoning employed by the Committee on Legal Affairs to the effect that ‘an MEP's duties do not include acting as responsible editor for a national party newspaper’. The applicant takes the view that one of the tasks of a politician is to express and disseminate a political opinion, and the publication and drafting, as the responsible editor, of political tracts and publications is, in particular, part of the task of a member of the European Parliament.


title: Case C-65/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2009 — Gebr. Weber GmbH v Jürgen Wittmer

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 February 2009 — Gebr. Weber GmbH v Jürgen Wittmer
   (Case C-65/09)
   2009/C 90/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gebr. Weber GmbH

      Defendant: Jürgen Wittmer

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees to be interpreted as precluding a national statutory provision under which, in the event of a lack of conformity of the consumer goods delivered, the seller may refuse the form of remedy required by the consumer when the remedy would result in the seller incurring costs which, compared with the value the consumer goods would have if there were no lack of conformity, and with the significance of the lack of conformity, would be unreasonable (absolutely disproportionate)?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: are the provisions of Article 3(2) and the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning that, where the goods are brought into conformity by replacement, the seller must bear the costs of removing the non-conforming consumer goods from a thing into which, in a manner consistent with their nature and purpose, the consumer has incorporated them?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.


title: Case C-49/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain)) — Finanmadrid EFC SA v Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano, María Josefa García Zapata, Jorge Luis Albán Zambrano and Miriam Elisabeth Caicedo Merino (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Order for payment procedure — Enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement to raise of its own motion the fact that the unfair term is invalid — Principle of res judicata — Principle of effectiveness — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Judicial protection)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain)) — Finanmadrid EFC SA v Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano, María Josefa García Zapata, Jorge Luis Albán Zambrano and Miriam Elisabeth Caicedo Merino
   (Case C-49/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Order for payment procedure - Enforcement proceedings - Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement to raise of its own motion the fact that the unfair term is invalid - Principle of res judicata - Principle of effectiveness - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Judicial protection))
   (2016/C 145/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanmadrid EFC SA

      Defendants: Jesús Vicente Albán Zambrano, María Josefa García Zapata, Jorge Luis Albán Zambrano and Miriam Elisabeth Caicedo Merino

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit the court ruling on the enforcement of an order for payment to assess of its own motion whether a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, when the authority hearing the application for an order for payment does not have the power to make such an assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Torino, by order of 18 December 1997, in the case of Battital Srl v. Regione Piemonte (Case C-14/98)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 72/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Circondariale di Torino, by order of 18 December 1997,
       in the case of Battital Srl v. Regione Piemonte               1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                        (Case C-14/98)                                   or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying
                         (98/C 72/24)                                    down the principles relating to the zootechnical and
                                                                         genealogical conditions applicable to imports from
                                                                         third countries of animals, their semen, ova and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   embryos (1), and amending Directive 77/504/EEC (2)
European Communities by order of 18 December 1997                        on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species,
from the Pretura Circondariale di Torino (District                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Magistrate's Court, Turin), which was received at the                    Directive and under the Treaty, and
Court Registry on 22 January 1998, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Battital Srl v. Regione Piemonte               2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
(Region of Piedmont), on the following questions:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Having regard to Article 1 of Directive 95/40/EC of
    19 July 1995 (1), Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom,          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
    ECSC, EC of 12 March 1996 (2) and Article 1 of                   be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
    Directive 96/15/EC of 14 March 1996 (3), does the                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
    ban on the importation of organisms of the Citrus                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
    genus still apply in Italy (or in any region of Italy)?          down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
                                                                     without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
                                                                     comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
2. Did that ban cease to apply with effect from 1 April              the Commission.
    1996?
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 66.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 206, 12.8.1977, p. 8.
3. Is the Ministerial Decree of 31 January 1996 of
    the Ministry of Agricultural Resources, which
    incorporated Directive 95/40/EC, incompatible, so far
    as the relevant provisions are concerned, with the
    discontinuance of the ban on imports into Italian
    territory (or into any part thereof) of plant organisms
    of the Citrus genus, as would appear to result from              Action brought on 28 January 1998 by the Commission of
    the combined effect of Directive 95/40/EC of 19 July                         the European Communities v. Ireland
    1995, Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom, ECSC, EC                                      (Case C-24/98)
    of 12 March 1996 and Article 1 of Directive 96/15/EC
    of 14 March 1996?                                                                          (98/C 72/26)
(1) OJ L 182, 2.8.1995, p. 14.                                       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(2) OJ L 68, 19.3.1996, p. 24.                                       Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 1998
(3) OJ L 70, 20.3.1996, p. 35.                                       by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                     represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, principal legal
                                                                     adviser, and Mr Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                     seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
                                                                     exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
                                                                     de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Action brought on 26 January 1998 by the Commission of               Commission, Centre Wagner.
            the European Communities v. Ireland
                        (Case C-21/98)                               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (98/C 72/25)
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations
                                                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                Directive 94/22/EC of 30 May 1994 aiming at
Justice of the European Communities on 26 January 1998                   establishing the conditions for granting and using
by the Commission of the European Communities,                           authorizations for the prospection, exploration and
represented by Mr James Macdonald Flett, a member of                     production of hydrocarbons (1), or by failing to adopt
its Legal Service, acting as agent, with an address for                  the measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez                   failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service, Centre
Wagner.                                                              Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-75/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — SEK Zollagentur GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen (Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties — Incurrence of a customs debt)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — SEK Zollagentur GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen
   (Case C-75/13) (1)

   ((Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties - Incurrence of a customs debt))
   2014/C 282/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SEK Zollagentur GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 50 and 203 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that an article left for temporary storage must be deemed to have been removed from customs supervision if it is declared for an external Community transit procedure, but it does not in fact leave the storage facility and is not presented to the customs office at the place of destination, although the transit documents have been presented there.

               2)

               The fourth indent of Article 203(3) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where an article is removed from customs supervision, the person who, as the approved consignor, placed that article in the external Community transit procedure is a customs debtor under that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


20150731035616932015/C 270/306572013TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150702242522Case T-657/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALEX — National word and figurative marks ALEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the marks at issue — No likelihood of confusion)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2420120150702EN0030242252Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2015 — BH Stores v OHIM — Alex Toys (ALEX)
   (Case T-657/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALEX — National word and figurative marks ALEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — No similarity between the goods and services covered by the marks at issue — No likelihood of confusion)’2015/C 270/30Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: BH Stores BV (Curaçao autonomous entity of the Netherlands) (represented by: T. Dolde, lawyer, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening between the General Court: Alex Toys LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1950/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between BH Stores BV and Alex Toys LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders BH Stores BV to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Alex Toys LLC for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance), Athens, by a decision of that court of 24 May 1995 in the case of P. Moskof v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (National Tobacco Board) (Case C-244/95)

text:
No C 268/10           PEN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
 ( OJ No L 139, p . 19 ), and Council Directive 92/31/EEC               1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
amending Directive 89/336/EEC ( OJ No L 126, p. 11 ),                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1 )           measures needed to comply with Council Directive
and Article 2 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned directives and                    91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty — the Courth ( Fifth Chamber),                 the laws of the Member States concerning
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.                       telecommunications terminal equipment, including the
Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L.                     mutual recognition of their conformity, the Hellenic
Sévon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
R. Grass , for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       Treaty;
 11 August 1995 , in which it:
                                                                       2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 1 . declares that, by omitting to bring into force the laws,          (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
     1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and
     Council Directive 92/31 /EEC of 28 April 1992
     amending Directive 89/336/EEC, Ireland has failed to             Action brought on 2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against
     fulfil its obligations under Article 12 (1 ) and Article 2 (1 )                     the European Parliament
     of the abovementioned directives and Article 1 89 of the                                 ( Case C-228/95 )
     EC Treaty;
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/21 )
2 , orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                    2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi, represented by Giancarlo
                                                                      Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar ( Italy ), with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux .
                                                                      The applicant claims inter alia that the Court should annul
                                                                      the notice entitled ' Call for nominations for the office of
                                                                      Ombudsman' ( ! ), and all acts connected with it or adopted
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                as a consequence .
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995                             By order of 1 1 July 1995, pursuant to Article 47 of the EC
                                                                      Statute of the Court of Justice, the Court referred that action
in Case C-260/94 : Commission of the European                         to the Court of First Instance .
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           C ) OJ No C 127, 23 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 95/C 268/20 )
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                      Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,
In Case C-260/94: Commission of the European                          by a decision of that court of 24 May 1995 in the case of P.
Communities ( agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Anders                Moskof v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (National
Christian Jessen ) v. Hellenic Republic (agents : Panagiotis                                  Tobacco Board )
Mylonopoulos and Ioanna Kiki ) — application for a
                                                                                ( Case C-244/95 )
declaration that, by failing to adopt, and alternatively by
failing to notify to the Commission, within the periods                                            95/C 268/22 )
prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
measures needed to comply with Council Directive                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the              European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications               Court of First Instance, Athens, of 24 March 1995 , which
terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of               was received at the Court Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a
their conformity ( OJ No L 128 , p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic        preliminary ruling in the case of P. Moskof A. E. v. Ethnikos
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —            Organismos Kapnou on the validity of Commission
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( x ) inasmuch as it concerns
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini             the agricultural conversion rates to be applied to the
( Rapporteur ), C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O.           premium for tobacco from the 1992 and previous harvests
Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              which was taken out of supervision from 1 July 1993 and
judgment on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of which is           subsequently. Doubt is cast on the validity of Regulation
as follows :                                                           ( EEC ) No 3477/93 on the following grounds :
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95           EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/ 11
A. failure by the EC Commission to submit to the                          3 . In the event that that question should also be answered
     Management Committee for Tobacco Regulation                               in the negative : may a body governed by public law rely
     ( EEC ) No 3477/93 in draft form having retroactive                       directly on Article 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in conjunction with
     effect;                                                                   Article 4(5 ) of Directive 77/388/EEC in order to oppose
                                                                               the application of a national provision even where the
B. infringement of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3813/92                       application of those provisions of the Directive, albeit
     and inadequacy of the statement of reasons in                             having an indirectly favourable effect through the
     Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ;                                deduction of input tax, also has a burdensome effect ?
C. infringement of Article 3(1 ), second paragraph, ( iv ) of             (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 727/70, as replaced by
     Article 1 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1329/90;
D. infringement of Article 39 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty;
E. infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of                  Appeal brought on 24 July 1995 by the European
     Community measures;
                                                                          Parliament against the judgment delivered on 30 May 1995
                                                                          by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
F. infringement of the principle of the protection of                     European Communities in Case T-289/94 between Angelo
     legitimate expectations ;
                                                                                Innamorati and the European Parliament
G. infringement of the principle of equal treatment of                                           ( Case C-254/95 P)
     traders in the Community;                                                                       ( 95/C 268/24 )
H. misuse of powers .                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 May 1995
                                                                          by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
(') OJ No L 317 , 18 . 12 . 1993 , p . 30 .                               European Communities in Case T-289/94 between Angelo
                                                                          Innamorati and the European Parliament was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                          24 July 1995 by the European Parliament, represented by
                                                                          Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana, acting as
                                                                          agents, with an address for service at the Secretariat of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                               European Parliament, Kirchberg.
Bundesfinanzhofby judgment of 21 March 1995 in the case
 of Finanzamt Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                          ( Case C-247/95 )
                            ( 95/C 268/23 )                               — set aside the contested decision, a judgment of the Court
                                                                               of First Instance delivered on 30 May 1995 in Case
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         T-289/94       Angelo       Innamorati     v.    European
European Communities by a judgment of the XI Senate of                         Parliament ( 1 );
the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 21 March
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 17 July                — grant the orders sought at first instance by the European
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt                       Parliament, namely:
Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden on the following                        — a ruling that the action is unfounded,
questions :
                                                                               — an order for costs in accordance with the applicable
 1 , does the fourth subparagraph of Article 4 ( 5 ) of                             provisions,
     Directive 77/388/EEC ( A ) allow the Member States to
     treat tax-exempted activities, in respect of which,                  — make an appropriate order as to the costs incurred
                                                                               before the Court of Justice .
     however, it is possible to opt to be taxed, of bodies
     governed by public law as activities which they engage in
     as public authorities, even though they pursue them                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     under the same legal conditions and in the same way as
     private traders ?                                                     infringement of Community law, in particular disregard or
                                                                           misinterpretation of the case-law of the Court of Justice and
                                                                           the Court of First Instance concerning the provision of
 2 . In the event that the first question should be answered in            reasons for administrative decisions : the Selection Board in a
     the negative: may the scope of the right of option to be              competition is not required to specify the marking criteria or
     taxed be restricted pursuant to the second subparagraph
      of Article 13 ( C ) of Directive 77/388/EEC in such a way            parameters which it is entitled to set for the marking of a
                                                                           written test .
     that, where activities coming under the first
      subparagraph of Article 13 ( C ) of that Directive are
      engaged in by bodies governed by public law, they are                (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 , p . 15 .
      treated    as   business      activities   only    in  certain
      circumstances ?


title: Case T-122/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Yao N’Dré v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/18

         Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Yao N’Dré v Council
   (Case T-122/11)
   2011/C 130/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Yao N’Dré (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      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-118/11 Attey v Council.


title: Case T-166/16: Action brought on 13 April 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/32

         Action brought on 13 April 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament
   (Case T-166/16)
   (2016/C 200/45)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested measures as unlawful;

               —

               consequently, order the European Parliament to repay EUR 12 000, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, or the higher sum which will be paid in compliance with the contested order in the course of the present proceedings;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Memorandum No D 302 681 of 11 February 2016 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, which contains the statement of reasons for Debit Note No 2016-207 of the same date appended thereto and concerning the recovery of sums alleged to have been unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance allowances.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-677/15, Panzeri v Parliament and Commission (OJ 2016 C 27, p. 74).


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Removal from the register of Case C-84/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/32)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 7 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-84/05: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-14/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover): Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG v Bezirksregierung Hannover (Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Scheme of aid for skimmed milk — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 — Powers of the Commission (Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999) — Prohibition of discrimination (Article 34(2) EC) — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
C 101/6                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             26.4.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             of 25 February 2003
                         of 6 March 2003
                                                                             in Case C-59/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic ( 1)
in Case C-14/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover): Molkerei Wagenfeld
Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG v Bezirksregierung                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                            Hannover (1)                                     92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premiums and abolition of
                                                                             prior or systematic controls over premiums and contracts —
                                                                                Gathering of information)
(Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk
products — Scheme of aid for skimmed milk — Validity of
Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 — Powers of the Com-
mission (Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999)                                                 (2003/C 101/11)
— Prohibition of discrimination (Article 34(2) EC) —
Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate
                            expectations)                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2003/C 101/10)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            In Case C-59/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: C. Tufvesson and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent:
                                                                             U. Leanza, assisted by G. de Bellis): Application for a declaration
                                                                             that, by introducing and maintaining in force rate-freezing
In Case C-14/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    rules applicable to all contracts of insurance in respect of third-
EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) for a                        party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles in relation
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    to risks situated within Italian territory, without distinguishing
court between Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH &                         between insurance companies having their head office in Italy
Co. KG and Bezirksregierung Hannover, on the validity of                     and those carrying on business in Italy through branch offices
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 of 17 December                       or under the freedom to provide services, in breach of:
1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC)
No 1255/1999 as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk                    (a)   the principle of the freedom to set premiums and the
and skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the                           abolition of prior or systematic controls over premiums
sale of such skimmed-milk powder (OJ 1999 L 340, p. 3), the                        and contracts, as dealt with in Articles 6, 29 and 39 of
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President                        Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the
of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth                       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and                       provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-                      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                   357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992
a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it has ruled:                                 L 228, p. 1);
Examination of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has            (b)   the provisions of Article 44 of that directive, which
revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the legality of                     concern arrangements for gathering information on the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 of 17 December                             amount of the premiums, claims and commission, the
1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC)                       frequency and average cost of claims, and the exchange
No 1255/1999 as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk and                      of information between the regulatory authorities of the
skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such                  home Member State and those of the host Member State,
skimmed-milk powder.
                                                                             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.                                                   that directive, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmer-
                                                                             mans (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,
                                                                             F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues


title: Joined Cases C-187/12 to C-189/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, Italia Zuccheri SpA, Co.Pro.B. — Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli Soc. coop. Agricola, Eridania Sadam SpA v AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 — Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 — Agriculture — Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry — Conditions for granting restructuring aid — Concepts of ‘production facilities’ and ‘full dismantling’ )

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, Italia Zuccheri SpA, Co.Pro.B. — Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli Soc. coop. Agricola, Eridania Sadam SpA v AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali
   (Joined Cases C-187/12 to C-189/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 - Agriculture - Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry - Conditions for granting restructuring aid - Concepts of ‘production facilities’ and ‘full dismantling’)
   2014/C 9/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, Italia Zuccheri SpA, Co.Pro.B. — Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli Soc. coop. Agricola, Eridania Sadam SpA

      Respondents: AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 320/2006 (OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32) — Conditions for granting the full amount of aid — Concepts of ‘production facilities’ and ‘full dismantling’ — Whether it is possible for the full amount of aid to be granted for sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup factories in the event that they retain facilities which are not connected with the production of those products, but are used for other products

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of those articles, the concept of ‘production facilities’ includes silos intended to store the aid beneficiary’s sugar, irrespective of whether they are employed for other purposes. Silos used only to store sugar, produced under quota, from other producers or bought from those producers, or those silos used only for packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it are not included within that concept. It is for the national court to carry out such an assessment, on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the technical characteristics of the silos concerned or how they are actually used.

               2.

               Consideration of the third and fourth questions in Case C-188/12 and the second and third questions in Case C-189/12 has not raised any factor liable to affect the validity of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 320/2006 and Article 4 of Regulation No 968/2006.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case C-127/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Sollac Méditerrannée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys, Arcelor SA v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Environment — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scope — Installations in the steel sector included — Installations in the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors excluded — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Sollac Méditerrannée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys, Arcelor SA v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   (Case C-127/07) (1)

   (Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scope - Installations in the steel sector included - Installations in the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors excluded - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2009/C 44/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Sollac Méditerrannée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys, Arcelor SA

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État — Validity, in the light of the Community principle of equal treatment, of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Difference in treatment as between, on the one hand, installations in the steel sector subject to the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme laid down by the Directive and, on the other, the aluminium and plastic industries, which emit identical greenhouse gases and which are not subject to that system — Objective justification for that difference in treatment?
   Operative part of the judgment
   Consideration of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004, from the point of view of the principle of equal treatment has disclosed nothing to affect its validity in so far as it makes the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme applicable to the steel sector without including the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors in its scope.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-234/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Sistema Teknolotzis v Commission (Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreements for the PlayMancer, Mobiserv and PowerUp projects — Article 299 TFEU — Enforceable decision — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Proportionality — Duty of diligence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Sistema Teknolotzis v Commission
   (Case T-234/15) (1)

   ((Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreements for the PlayMancer, Mobiserv and PowerUp projects - Article 299 TFEU - Enforceable decision - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Proportionality - Duty of diligence - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 277/49)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Sistema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Georgilas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Politis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 1677 final of 10 March 2015 constituting writ of execution for the enforced recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 716 334,05 together with interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sistema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case T-290/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark OMNICARE — Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the services — Genuine use of the earlier mark)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE)
   (Case T-290/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OMNICARE - Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Genuine use of the earlier mark)
   2011/C 311/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Astellas Pharma GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Gutiérrez Martínez, H. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 402/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Omnicare, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 June 2002 in Case C-398/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Plans notified — No decision by the Commission within the two-month time-limit — Time-limit of 15 working days for initiating the formal investigation procedure — Calculation of the time-limit — Conditions governing prior notice by the Member State and notification of the Commission's decision — Service by fax)

text:
C 191/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                              of 18 June 2002
                           of 18 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-60/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-398/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC — Air pollution —
(State aid — Plans notified — No decision by the Com-                       Municipal waste incineration plants — Incinerators in
mission within the two-month time-limit — Time-limit of                                                    France)
15 working days for initiating the formal investigation
procedure — Calculation of the time-limit — Conditions
governing prior notice by the Member State and notification                                            (2002/C 191/13)
        of the Commission’s decision — Service by fax)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2002/C 191/12)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-60/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:
                                                                            G. de Bergues and D. Colas, and, subsequently, R. Abraham
In Case C-398/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-                 and D. Colas): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                       adopt all the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure
G. Rozet and R. Vidal): Application for annulment of the                    that all incinerators currently operating in France are operated
Commission’s decision of 17 August 2000, notified to the                    in accordance with the combustion conditions laid down by
Kingdom of Spain by letter SG (2000) D/106322 of 22 August                  Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the preven-
2000 and published in the Official Journal of the European                  tion of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration
Communities of 18 November 2000 (OJ 2000 C 328, p. 19), to                  plants (OJ 1989 L 163, p. 32) and Council Directive 89/429/
initiate the formal investigation procedure for assessing the               EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from
compatibility with the EC Treaty of aid to Santana Motor SA,                existing municipal waste incineration plants (OJ 1989 L 203,
in respect of all measures therein referred to, other than the              p. 50) or that they ceased to operate by the due date, namely
guarantee granted in June 1998, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  1 December 1990 as regards new plants and 1 December
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, J-P. Puisso-              1996 as regards existing plants, the French Republic has failed
chet (Rapporteur), and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate               to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 89/
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June               369, Articles 2(a) and 4 of Directive 89/429 and the third
2002, in which it:                                                          paragraph of Article 249 EC, the Court, composed of:
                                                                            G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Col-
                                                                            neric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), A. La Pergola,
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 17 August 2000, notified
                                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
      to the Kingdom of Spain by letter SG (2000) D/106322 of               and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
      22 August 2000, to initiate the formal investigation procedure
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
      for assessing the compatibility with the EC Treaty of aid to          on 18 June 2002, in which it:
      Santana Motor SA, in respect of all measures therein referred
      to, other than the guarantee granted in June 1998;
                                                                            1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt all the necessary and
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay                     appropriate measures to ensure that all incinerators in France
      the costs.                                                                   are operated in accordance with the combustion conditions laid
                                                                                down by Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on
                                                                                the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                          incineration plants and Council Directive 89/429/EEC of
                                                                                21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing
                                                                                municipal waste incineration plants or that they ceased to
                                                                                operate by the due date, namely 1 December 1990 as regards


C 101/54               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     26.4.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-244/02 (1)                             Removal from the register of Case T-345/02 (1)
                        (2003/C 101/95)                                                             (2003/C 101/96)
                   (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
By order of 27 January 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Second
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-244/02: G.D. Searle LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM).                           T-345/02: European Dynamics v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.