28.3.98                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 94/15
Ð point 2 of the statement infringes Article 73b of the                      fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 and 52 of the
     EC Treaty and Council Directive 88/361/EEC, in that                     EC Treaty and Article 13 of the said Regulation,
     it requires a maturity of at least two years for
     securities issues by foreign credit institutions on the            Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     German market, and is thus a hindrance to such issues
     compared with issues by German credit institutions.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Contrary to the view of the German Government, in
                                                                        The social debt repayment contribution (CRDS) was
accordance with the scheme of Article 73b et seq. and the
                                                                        introduced by Regulation No 96-50 of 24 January 1996
wording of the first indent of Article 109e(2)(a),
                                                                        and the proceeds of the contribution are allocated to the
restrictions of the free movement of capital may not be
                                                                        Caisse d'Amortissement de la Dette Sociale (Social Debt
justified on the ground of requirements of Member States'
                                                                        Redemption Fund) established by that Regulation. All
monetary policy. However, the restrictions contained in
                                                                        natural persons regarded as resident in France under
the statement are in any event disproportionate, since Ð
                                                                        French tax law are liable to pay the CRDS in particular
as shown by the example of numerous other Member
                                                                        on their employment income or substitute income.
States Ð money supply can be controlled without
                                                                        Taxable persons resident in France who draw their
adopting measures which restrict the free movement of
                                                                        employment income or substitute income from another
capital.
                                                                        Member State are thus subject to the CRDS.
Contrary to the view of the German Government, a rule
                                                                        Since the CRDS is intended to contribute to the financing
which imposes on domestic banks only a minimum reserve
                                                                        of all sectors of the general social security scheme in
obligation for bonds issued exclusively in Germany affects
                                                                        France, it is a social security contribution within the scope
internal factual situations only; there is thus no
                                                                        of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
discrimination relevant from the point of view of
Community law.
                                                                        The levying of the CRDS on the employment income and
(1) Statement of the Deutsche Bundesbank on German mark                 substitute income of persons who reside in France but
    issues of 3 July 1992.                                              work in another Member State, such as frontier-zone
(2) Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the                workers, calls into question the single legislation rule,
    implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ L 178,               inasmuch as the CRDS intended for the financing of social
    8.7.1988, p. 5).                                                    security schemes is levied on income which has already
(3) Second Council Directive of 15 December 1989 on the                 been subjected to all the social contributions of the State
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                of employment, which is the only State competent in
    provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business
                                                                        social security matters in accordance with Article 13 of
    of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ
    L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1).                                           Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
                                                                        Levying the CRDS on such income on which social
                                                                        contributions have already been levied in the State of
                                                                        employment is incompatible with the said Regulation and
                                                                        constitutes a barrier to the exercise of the fundamental
Action brought on 12 February 1998 by the Commission                    freedoms guaranteed under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 Treaty.
                           (Case C-34/98)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                            (98/C 94/31)                                    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
                                                                            self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                            moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
An action against the French Republic was brought before                    1971, p. 416).
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Peter Hillenkamp, Legal
Adviser, and HeÂleÁne Michard, of its Legal Service, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                           Removal from the register of Case C-72/97 (1)
Kirchberg.
                                                                                (98/C 94/32)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 18 November 1997, the President of the
Ð declare that, by applying the social debt repayment                   Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
     contribution (CRDS) to the employment income and                   removal from the register of Case C-72/97: Commission of
     substitute income of employed and self-employed                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain.
     persons resident in France but working in another
     Member State, who by virtue of Regulation (EEC)                    (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
     No 1408/71 (1) are not subject to French social
     security legislation, the French Republic has failed to


title: Action brought on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-307/98)

text:
C 299/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.9.98
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (2) Secretary                conforms to the limit values set in accordance with
of State for the Environment, ex parte: Monsante plc, and                  Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
I Pi Ci SpA, Intervener, on the following questions:                       8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
                                                                           water (1) within 10 years following the notification of
1. Whenever a Member State authorises the placing on                      this Directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     the market in its territory of a plant protection                     fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive 76/
     product pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Directive                 160/EEC and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
     91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of                  EC Treaty, and
     plant protection products on the market (1), does
     Article 8(3) of that Directive apply so as to require the
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     Member State to evaluate the application for
     authorisation in accordance with the requirements laid
     down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) and (c) to (f)?'                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
     Member State under an obligation to apply the                     Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
     requirements of Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) to such                 in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 76/160/EEC,
     applications in the light of current scientific and              Belgium is required to make the quality of its bathing
     technical knowledge'?                                             waters conform to the limit values set in accordance with
                                                                       Article 3 of the Directive within 10 years, a period which
                                                                       expired on 11 December 1985.
3. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
     Member State also under an obligation to apply the
     requirements of Article 4(1)(c) to (f) to such                    In the Commission's view, the Walloon Region authorities
     applications in the light of current scientific and              were wrong to revise in 1996 the list of bathing areas and
     technical knowledge'?                                             withdraw some 30 bathing sites so that there appear to
                                                                       remain only 10 officially designated bathing areas. The
4. If the answers to questions 1, 2 and/or 3 are in the                grounds relied on in order to justify such revision are not
     affirmative is the Member State under an obligation to            sufficient in order to exclude the sites in question from the
     ensure that its national provisions concerning the data           bathing waters covered by the Directive. The Belgian
     to be provided (as referred to in Articles 8(3) and               authorities advertise no fewer than 16 of those sites in the
     13(6) of the Directive) permit an evaluation to be                1998 guide to camping sites as bathing areas available
     carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down             within a short distance from those camping sites.
     in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) and (c) to (f) of the Directive
     in the light of current scientific and technical
     knowledge'?                                                       The measures adopted by Belgium in order to make the
                                                                       quality of the waters conform to the limit values set
(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.                                         pursuant to Article 4 of the Directive, in particular the
                                                                       programmes of investment in water purification both in
                                                                       Flanders and in the Walloon Region, are inadequate; the
                                                                       Belgian authorities mention the setting up of water
                                                                       treatment infrastructures in general without being specific
                                                                       about their impact on the improvement of bathing-water
                                                                       quality. So far as concerns Flanders, the water purification
Action brought on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of                   programme does not even cover all the bathing areas. As
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        to the Walloon Region, the programmes contain no details
                             Belgium                                   as to the dates for the start and completion of the work
                        (Case C-307/98)                                on the infrastructures provided for or information on the
                                                                       exact location of those works.
                         (98/C 299/43)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   According to the report on the quality of bathing waters
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                during the 1995 bathing season for the whole of Belgium
on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of the European                     (EUR 16755), the rate of conformity of freshwater bathing
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                 areas was 41,4 %. The report on the quality of bathing
of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national              waters during the 1996 bathing season for the whole of
civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as            Belgium (EUR 17629) indicates that, even if the 30 sites
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               indicated by the Walloon Region are removed from the list
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,               of Walloon sites taken into account for the purpose of
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              drawing up the annual reports on the implementation of
                                                                       the Directive, the level of conformity is only 85,5 %.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       (1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary
     measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water


No C 269/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-5/96 ( 1 )                       Removal from the register of Case C-413/93 ( )
                           ( 96/C 269/46 )                                                        ( 96/C 269/50 )
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Court of                By order of 19 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-5/96 : Commission of the                   from the register of Case C-413/93 ( Request for a
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                             preliminary ruling from the Pretura circondariale di
                                                                       Trapani ): Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta .
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 300 , 6 . 11 . 1993 .
      Removal from the register of Case C-387/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 269/47 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-121 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/51 )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
register of Case C-387/95 : Commission of the European                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Communities v. Ireland .                                               from the register of Case C-121 /94 ( Request for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht ): Domingo
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-394/95 (')
                            ( 96/C 269/48 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-385/95 ( )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/52 )
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-394/95 : Commission of the European                 By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Communities v. Ireland .                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-385/95 : Commission of the
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/96 ( )
                            ( 96/C 269/49 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/95 ( )
 By order of 5 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/53 )
 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-40/96 : Commission of the European                   By order of 9 July 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
 Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/95 : Commission of the European
 (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                       Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case T-435/15: Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Kolachi Raj Industrial/Commission

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/19

         Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Kolachi Raj Industrial/Commission
   (Case T-435/15)
   (2015/C 328/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: P. Bentley, QC)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 (1) in so far as it:

                           —

                           (i) rejects the applicant’s request for an exemption from any extension of anti-dumping measures to imports of bicycles consigned from Pakistan;

                           —

                           (ii) extends the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 (2) on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned by the Applicant from Pakistan; and

                           —

                           (iii) orders the collection of the said duty on imports consigned from Pakistan and registered in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 (3).

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceeding.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 13(2)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51). More specifically, in the application of Article 13(2)(b) the defendant committed errors of procedure and law, and used incoherent reasoning.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 of 18 May 2015 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not (OJ 2015 L 122, p. 4).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 938/2014 of 2 September 2014 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2014 L 263, p. 5).


C 200/56              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-58/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-25/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/103)                                                    (2001/C 200/105)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            By order of 15 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-58/00: (reference for a preliminary          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Leopold Hein v        the register of Case C-25/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter, Landesstelle Salz-       from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
burg.                                                               Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 v Hôtel Plaza SpA.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-247/00 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-375/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/104)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice                               (2001/C 200/106)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-247/00: Commission of the European           By order of 18 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Portuguese Republic.                                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-375/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case T-5/07: Action brought on 5 January 2007 — Belgium v Commission

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/32

         Action brought on 5 January 2007 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-5/07)
   (2007/C 56/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent, J.-P. Buyle and C. Steyaert, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the application is admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 18 October 2006 in so far as that decision considers that the ‘old ESF debts’ — which the Kingdom of Belgium paid voluntarily, but without prejudice, on 21 December 2004 — are not subject to a limitation period;

               —

               in consequence, rule that those debts are subject to a limitation period pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95/EC, Euratom and, in consequence, order the European Commission to repay the Kingdom of Belgium the sum of EUR 63 117 760, together with default interest applied from 21 December 2004 and calculated at the ECB base rate increased by three and a half points;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the Commission's decision of 18 October 2006, in so far as that decision considers that non-payment of the old ESF debts at issue generates interest and, in consequence, order the European Commission to repay the applicant the interest paid by the latter on the debts at issue, that is to say, the sum of EUR 37 772 499, together with default interest applied from 21 December 2004 and calculated at the ECB base rate increased by three and a half points;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the Commission's decision of 18 October 2006 as regards the rate of the interest claimed and, accordingly, rule that that interest rate changes according to the rate of interest applied by the ECB to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the Official Journal and, in consequence, order the Commission to repay the applicant the excess interest paid by it on the debts at issue, together with default interest applied from 21 December 2004 and calculated at the ECB base rate increased by three and a half points;

               —

               in any case, order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present application, Belgium seeks annulment of the Commission's decision, set out in the letter of 18 October 2006, refusing to repay Belgium a sum that it had paid in settlement of old debts owed to the European Social Fund, which Belgium claims should be reimbursed on the ground that those debts are subject to a limitation period and, in the alternative, on the ground that there is no legal basis for requiring the payment of interest.
   During the period from 1987 to 1992, the Commission asked Belgium, by decisions adopted on the basis of Regulation No 2950/83/EEC (1) and Decision 83/673/EEC (2), to repay sums that had been granted in the form of assistance to various Belgian bodies (promoters) and that they had not used. Belgium passed on the debit notes issued by the Commission to the promoters concerned. Although some of the promoters reimbursed the Commission directly, others entered into correspondence with the Commission concerning the lawfulness of the requests for reimbursement. At the initiative of the Commission, fresh discussions were opened in 2003. In 2004, the Commission took steps to offset the amounts owed by way of the old ESF debts at issue (debit notes issued between 15 January 1987 and 31 December 1991) — plus default interest applied from the date of issue of the debit notes — using Belgium's debts to the Commission in the framework of management of the ESF funds. Belgium contested that offsetting, as well as the interest applied by the Commission, on the grounds that the debt was subject to a limitation period, and that there was no legal basis for the application of default interest. Nevertheless, in order to stop interest from running, Belgium paid a sum representing the balance of the amounts due by way of ESF debts that had not been offset. At the same time, Belgium made it clear that it was not abandoning the arguments put forward in its correspondence and that it reserved the right to claim reimbursement of those sums in so far as its arguments were well founded. The Commission replied by letter of 19 January 2005 in which it stated its views on Belgium's contentions. That letter was the subject of an application for annulment brought by the Kingdom of Belgium before the Court of First Instance. By order of 2 May 2006, the Court of First Instance dismissed the application as inadmissible on the ground that the letter at issue was not an act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 230 EC. (3)

   On 29 June 2006, Belgium addressed another letter to the Commission requesting reimbursement of the sum representing the balance of the amounts due by way of ESF debts that had not been offset — which it had paid in order to stop interest from running — on the basis of the arguments relied upon beforehand relating to the limitation period for the debt, as well as those relating to the lack of a legal basis for requiring interest. By letter of 18 October 2006 the Commission stated its refusal to effect the reimbursement sought. That letter is the contested act for the purposes of the present proceedings.
   In support of the main forms of order sought, Belgium maintains that the only European legislation that fully addresses the recovery by the Commission of unused monies in accordance with the materially relevant provisions of European law is Regulation No 2988/95/EC, Euratom (4). According to Belgium, Article 3 of that Regulation, which lays down the limitation periods for proceedings, must be applied in the present case. Belgium also argues that if the Court of First Instance is obliged to find that Belgium cannot challenge the Commission on the basis of the limitation periods provided for in Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95/EC, Euratom, it would be appropriate to refer to Article 2(4) of that Regulation, and to apply the Belgian law governing the length of limitation periods for ‘personal’ actions.
   In support of the forms of order sought in the alternative, relating to the inappropriateness of the legal basis for the Commission's claim for default interest from Belgium, the latter submits that the Commission is committing an error by applying Article 86(2)(b) of Regulation No 2342/2002/EC, Euratom laying down the detailed rules for implementation of the Financial Regulation (5). Belgium argues that there are special rules which derogate from that Regulation and that, by virtue of those special rules, the Commission may take as a basis only the rules governing the operation of the ESF — the source of the debts in respect of which the Commission is requesting payment — in order to determine how much interest, if any, is payable. On that point, Belgium submits that the Commission may claim interest only if interest was provided for, and, according to Belgium, that was not the case at the material time.
   In the further alternative, Belgium submits that, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Commission, the rate of the interest claimed is variable. In consequence, it claims that the Court should order the Commission to reimburse the excess interest that Belgium has paid on the debts at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC the tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on the management of the European Social Fund (ESF) (OJ L 377, 31.12.1983, p. 1).

      (3)  Order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-134/05 Belgium v Commission [2006] ECR II-0000.

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1).


4 . 5 . 96         UN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 133/33
        Removal from the register of Case T-516/93 ( )                    Removal from the register of Case T-263/94 ( 1 )
                          ( 96/C 133/67 )                                                     ( 96/C 133/69 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                                        (Language of tbe case: Dutch)
By order of 7 March 1996 the President of the Fourth                 By order of 19 March 1996 the President of the First
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-516/93 : Pacific Fruit Company           from the register of Case T-263/94 : J. van Rooy v. Council
NV and Pacific Fruit Company BV v. Council of the                    of the European Union and Commission of the European
European Union and Commission of the European                        Communities .
Communities .
                                                                     (M OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-517/93 ( )               Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-27/95 and
                          ( 96/C 133/68 )                                                        T-29/95 (*)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/70 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 March 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 28 February 1 996 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-517/93 : Leon Van Parijs NV v.           Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                  Joined Cases T-27/95 and T-29/95 : Nicolas Wegter and
European Communities .
                                                                     Antonio B. de Menezes v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities .
(') OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .


title: Case T-323/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston v OHIM (shape of a bottle) (Community trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal — Application for a three-dimensional trade mark — Shape of a bottle — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston v OHIM (shape of a bottle)
   (Case T-323/11) (1)

   (Community trade marks - Absolute grounds for refusal - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Shape of a bottle - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston SAA (Lima, Peru) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and C. Morán Medina, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 2238/2010-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting in the shape of a bottle as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston SAA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-254/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/20/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Authorisation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-254/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/20/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Authorisation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 36/24)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-254/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Zavvos and M. Shotter) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 14 June 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 07.08.2004


title: Case T-237/08: Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Abadía Retuerta v OHIM (CUVÉE PALOMAR)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/27

         Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Abadía Retuerta v OHIM (CUVÉE PALOMAR)
   (Case T-237/08)
   (2008/C 272/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Abadía Retuerta, S.A. (Sardón de Duero, Spain) (represented by X. Fàbrega Sabaté and Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 2 April 2008 in Case R 1185/2007-1, and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CUVÉE PALOMAR’ for goods in Class 33 (Application for Registration No 5.501.937).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The application for the Community mark in question does not infringe Article 7(1)(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since it does not contain or consist of a false geographic indication.

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


title: Case C-438/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras, by order of that court of 10 November 1999 in the case of María Luisa Jiménez Melgar against the Municipality of Los Barrios

text:
22.1.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 20/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                  Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon         a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are             upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 3 September               laid down in the directive. That period expired without Ireland
1997 without the Italian Republic having brought into force               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive            directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
referred to in the Commission’s application.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17-22.
                                                                          (2) on the certification of animals and animal products OJ L 13 of
(1) OJ 1996 L 236, p. 36.                                                     16.01.1997, p. 18-30.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 295, 29.10.1997, p. 35-36.
Action brought on 16 November 1999 by the Com-                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                    Social Único de Algeciras, by order of that court of
                                                                          10 November 1999 in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez
                                                                                Melgar against the Municipality of Los Barrios
                          (Case C-437/99)
                                                                                (Case C-438/99)
                           (2000/C 20/34)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/35)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 November 1999                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
by Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, and by Mr Keir Fitch,                  Único (Social Court), Algeciras, of 10 November 1999, which
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the             was received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1999, for
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as             a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez Melgar
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos            against Municipality of Los Barrios, on the following questions:
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                                1. Is Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) sufficiently clear,
                                                                               precise and unconditional to be directly effective?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               2. In providing that ‘Member States shall take the necessary
                                                                               measures to prohibit the dismissal of workers ... [who are
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws regulations or                     pregnant, have given birth or are breastfeeding] during the
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                         period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end
                                                                               of the maternity leave ... save in exceptional cases not
    — Directive 95/53/EC of the Council of 25 October 1995                     connected with their condition’, does Article 10 of the
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                   Directive require the Member States to lay down, on a
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (1);            specific and exceptional basis, the available grounds for
                                                                               dismissing a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is
    — Directive 96/93/EC of the Council of 17 December                         breast-feeding, so that they must introduce into national
         1996 (2) laying down the rules to be observed in issuing              legislation, together with the general rules on the
         the certificates required by veterinary legislation;                  extinguishment of employment contracts, a further special,
                                                                               exceptional and more limited set of rules expressly for
                                                                               those cases in which the worker is pregnant, has given
    — Directive 97/61/EC of the Council of 20 October 1997                     birth or is breast-feeding?
         amending the Annex to Directive 91/492/EEC laying
         down the health conditions for the production and                3. What repercussions does Article 10 of the Directive have
         placing on the market of live bi-valve molluscs (3)                   regarding non-renewal by an employer of a fixed-term
                                                                               contract of a woman who is pregnant under the same
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,                        circumstances as prevailed in relation to earlier contracts?
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those                   Does Article 10 affect the protection enjoyed by a pregnant
    Directives, and                                                            woman in the context of temporary employment relation-
                                                                               ships, and if so, in what way, according to what parameters
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                              and to what extent?
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/18                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
4. Where Article 10 of the Directive states that the dismissal                         of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and
     of a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is                                on fruit and vegetables and Annex II to Directive
     breast-feeding is to take place ‘where applicable, provided                       90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels
     that the competent authority has given its consent’, does                         for pesticide residues in and on certain products
     the Directive require that a worker who is pregnant, has                          of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and
     given birth or is breast-feeding may be dismissed only by                         providing for the establishment of a list of maximum
     means of a special procedure in which the appropriate                             levels (1),
     competent authority gives its consent prior to the dismissal
     which the employer seeks?                                                     — Council Directive 96/33/EC of 21 May 1996 amending
                                                                                the Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC and
                                                                                86/363/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for
(1) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-                    pesticide residues in and on cereals and foodstuffs of
    tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
                                                                                animal origin respectively (1),
    health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have
    recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive
                                                                                — Council Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on
    within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) —
    OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1.                                                               the certification of animals and animal products (2),
                                                                                — Commission Directive 97/72/EC of 15 December
                                                                                1997 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC con-
                                                                                cerning additives in feedingstuffs (3), and
Action brought on 18 November 1999 by the Com-                                     — Commission Directive 98/19/EC of 18 March 1998
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                                  amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
                      Duchy of Luxembourg                                              additives in feedingstuffs (4),
                          (Case C-440/99)                                          the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 4 of Directive 96/32/EC, Article 3
                           (2000/C 20/36)                                          of Directive 96/33/EC, Article 9 of Directive 96/93/EC,
                                                                                Article 2 of Directive 97/72/EC and Article 2 of Directive
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                                98/19/EC;
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 18 November 1999 by the Commission of the Euro-                      2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
pean Communities, represented by Gérard Berscheid, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in               The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its                 Case C-405/99 (5); the time-limits for transposition expired on
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                     30 April 1997 (Directives 96/32/EC and 96/33/EC), 1 January
                                                                             1998 (Directive 96/93/EC) and 31 March 1998 (Directives
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 97/72/EC and 98/19/EC).
1. Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and administrative             ( 1) OJ No L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 12.
     provisions necessary to comply with                                     ( 2) OJ No L 13 of 16.1.1997, p. 18.
                                                                             ( 3) OJ No L 351 of 23.12.1997, p. 55.
     — Council Directive 96/32/EC of 21 May 1996 amending                    ( 4) OJ No L 96 of 28.3.1998, p. 39.
         Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating to the fixing             ( 5) See p. 10 of this OJ.


title: Case T-365/08: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2010 — Hidalgo v OHIM — Bodegas Hidalgo — La Gitana (HIDALGO) (Community trade mark — Annulment of registration of the national mark which was the subject-matter of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/32

         Order of the General Court of 27 September 2010 — Hidalgo v OHIM — Bodegas Hidalgo — La Gitana (HIDALGO)
   (Case T-365/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Annulment of registration of the national mark which was the subject-matter of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 317/58
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Emilio Hidalgo SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

      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: Bodegas Hidalgo — La Gitana SA (Sanlucar de Barrameda, Spain) (represented by: S. Rivero Galán and J.M. Sanjuán de Coca, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2008 (Case R 1329/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Emilio Hidalgo SA and Bodegas Hidalgo — La Gitana SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each of the parties is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272 of 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-158/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Dow Chemical v Council (Dumping — Imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Expiry of anti-dumping measures — Review — Likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Dow Chemical v Council
   (Case T-158/10) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Expiry of anti-dumping measures - Review - Likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)
   2012/C 184/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, Michigan, United States) (represented: initially by J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and V. Hahn, and subsequently by J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, R. Szostak and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, barrister)

      Intervening party in support of the defendant: European Commission, (represented: initially by H. van Vliet and M. França, and subsequently by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 of 19 January 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States of America (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 of 19 January 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns The Dow Chemical Company;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of The Dow Chemical Company;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 January 2005 in Case T-387/03: Proteome Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark BIOKNOWLEDGE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive sign)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 19 January 2005
   in Case T-387/03: Proteome Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark BIOKNOWLEDGE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Descriptive sign)
   (2005/C 69/28)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-387/03: Proteome Inc., established at Beverly, Massachusetts (United States), represented by M. Edenborough, Barrister, C. Jones, A. Brodie and C. Loweth, Solicitors, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: P. Bullock and S. Laitinen) — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 August 2003 (Case R 0707/2002-4), and the examiner's decision of 21 June 2002 refusing registration of the word mark BIOKNOWLEDGE — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-238/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environment (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environment
   (Case T-238/16) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default))
   (2017/C 161/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Scouring Environment SARL (Tauriac, France)

      Re:

   Action brought on the basis of Article 272 TFEU for an order that Scouring Environment repay the sum advanced under Grant Agreement No 287071, together with default interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Scouring Environment SARL to repay the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 60 000, together with accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 3,65 % per annum from 12 September 2014 until the date of full payment of the amount due;

               2.

               Orders Scouring Environment to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case C-301/99 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areacova S.A. and 30 others and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 314/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.10.1999
Appeal brought on 11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     — annul the contested decision (1);
European Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areaco-
va S.A. and 30 others and the Council of the European                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-301/99 P)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (1999/C 314/07)                                1. The Commission maintains in the contested decision that
                                                                            the obligation to asses the aid in the light of an approval
An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third                previously given cannot apply where, as in the present
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                      case, that approval is accompanied by the reservation of a
Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areacova S.A. and 30                    right to examine individual cases involving the application
others and the Council of the European Union and the                        of the general scheme.
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  In reality, the fact that the letter approving the national
11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented                  plans for the sector concerned reserved the right to
by Antonio Creus Carreras of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva                     examine the measures to be taken to implement those
Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the                      plans and requested notification of those measures does
Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas                 not mean that, in carrying out the subsequent assessments,
Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.                           the Commission was entitled to depart from the con-
                                                                            clusions previously reached by it, by evaluating the
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 measures in question as individual grants of aid and
                                                                            applying new parameters which differed from those used
(1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of                 at the time when the sectoral plans were approved.
     First Instance in Case T-12/96 on account of all or some
     of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal         2. The Commission stases that a substantial number of the
     consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,             measures examined were not in conformity with the
     either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case             sectoral plans, on the grounds that some of them did not
     or by referring the matter back to the Court of First                  fall within the types of intervention provided for by the
     Instance;                                                              national sectoral plans, that some grants of aid were not
                                                                            provided for by a specific intervention plan, and that
(2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court                others, although provided for by sectoral plans, did not
     of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,               pursue any of the policy objectives described in general
     and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward            terms in the national sectoral plans and did not lay down
     in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially               any detailed rules for carrying on activities supplementing,
     upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first                or in substitution for, the production of sugar.
     instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
                                                                            On the basis of Article 46 of Regulation No 1785/81 (2)
                                                                            and Article 4 of Regulation No 1254/89 (3), the conformity
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             of the grants of aid-with the sectoral plans is, in essence,
                                                                            to be assessed in the light of the extent to which they
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                      correspond to the objectives and aims pursued as a whole
Case C-300/99 P.                                                            by those plans.
                                                                            The Commission has totally failed to state its position
                                                                            regarding the general compatibility of the initiatives adopt-
                                                                            ed with the objectives and aims pursued as a whole by
                                                                            the sectoral plans; it has merely raised the objections
                                                                            summarised above and/or examined the scope of the
Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic                    measures in terms of the Community guidelines concern-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        ing aid. This constitutes a further defect in the contested
                                                                            decision, either because it infringes the Community rules
                                                                            or because it amounts to an inadequate statement of
                         (Case C-318/99)                                    reasons.
                         (1999/C 314/08)                                3. The Commission’s infringement of the rules governing the
                                                                            assessment of the aid in question and its fundamental
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   failure to evaluate the general compatibility of the measures
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                referred to above with the objectives and aims pursued as
Communities on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic,                      a whole by the sectoral plans undoubtedly influenced the
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by                 decision to carry out an ‘in depth’ examination of the
Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address                     measures taken, resulting in an incorrect approach which
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue                     ultimately had a negative effect on the conclusions arrived
Marie-Adelaïde.                                                             at by the Commission.


title: Case C-385/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 2007 by Der Grüne Punk — Duales System Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 24 May 2007 in Case T-151/01 Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Vfw AG, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and Belland Vision GmbH

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/29

         Appeal brought on 13 August 2007 by Der Grüne Punk — Duales System Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 24 May 2007 in Case T-151/01 Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Vfw AG, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and Belland Vision GmbH
   (Case C-385/07 P)
   (2007/C 269/51)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Der Grüne Punk — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Wagner, B. Meyring, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Vfw AG, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and Belland Vision GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 24 May 2007 in Case T-151/01;

               —

               annulment of Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of 20 April 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/34493 — DSD) (1);

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance for reassessment in accordance with the Court's judgment;

               —

               in any case, order the Commission to pay the costs both before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The appellant bases its appeal against the above mentioned judgment of the Court of First Instance on eight grounds of appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed its duty to give reasons and thus also Article 82 EC with its contradictory finding of the conduct leading to an abuse. In one instance the Court found that there had been an abuse on the basis that the appellant requires undertakings, which do not use its system or use it only in respect of certain packaging carrying its logo, to pay the full licence fee. In another instance the Court states that it only ‘could be the case’ under the provisions in dispute of the Trade Mark Agreement that the appellant charges the price of the collection and recovery service for sales packaging which is not part of its system.
   The second, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal relate to the assessment of the scope of the licence offered by the appellant, which, it is argued, is inadequate, manifestly misleading and wrong in law as being at variance with the documents and evidence submitted. Had the Court carried out its assessment of the facts correctly it would have had to recognise that the appellant does not grant licences in isolation in such a way that the contested decision would have to be understood as a finding that the refusal to grant such a licence is abusive and that the order to cease charging any licence fee for partial quantities of sales packaging in Article 3 of the contested decision is tantamount to an order to charge a compulsory licence fee. However, the Court wrongly failed to respect the requirements resulting from the case-law to give reasons and failed to have regard to the fact that a compulsory licence is not possible from the point of view of trade mark and packaging law. The appellant claims in that regard that the duty to give reasons, the fundamental principle of proportionality and Article 82 EC and Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17 were infringed.
   By its third and fourth pleas in law the appellant claims that the Court infringed its duty to give reasons and thus also Article 82 EC by its finding that the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ could not benefit from the ‘exclusivity claimed’, which, it is argued, is inadequate, misleading and wrong as regards German packaging and trade mark law. With that finding it even infringed the fundamental principle of Community trade mark law under which a registered mark grants its proprietor an exclusive right, in particular, in relation to the use of the mark for goods and services which are identical or similar to those for which the mark was registered.
   By its seventh and eighth pleas in law the appellant alleges two procedural errors. First, the Court introduced new findings or made findings of its own motion even though the subject-matter of those findings was not part of the contested decisions or introduced by the parties in the proceedings before the Court. Second, the Court committed a procedural error to the detriment of the appellant in that it infringed the basic right of the Union that a case is to be dealt with within a reasonable period of time.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1.


title: Case T-332/09: Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Electrabel v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Decision imposing a fine for having put a concentration into effect — Obligation not to put the concentration into effect — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Error of assessment — Limitation period — Amount of the fine)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/15

         Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Electrabel v Commission
   (Case T-332/09) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Decision imposing a fine for having put a concentration into effect - Obligation not to put the concentration into effect - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Error of assessment - Limitation period - Amount of the fine)
   2013/C 32/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Electrabel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Pittie and P. Honoré, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4416 final of 10 June 2009, imposing a fine for having implemented a concentration contrary to Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (COMP/M.4994 Electrabel — Compagnie Nationale du Rhône) and, in the alternative, the annulment of or the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Electrabel to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-614/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM — Kule (KULE)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/24

         Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM — Kule (KULE)
   (Case T-614/14)
   2014/C 351/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kule LLC (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2014 given in Case R 2375/2013-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KULE’ for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 917 097

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trademarks and well-known trade mark for the word ‘CULE’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) CTMR.


title: Case T-381/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission
   (Case T-381/03) (1)

   (2006/C 281/76)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.


title: Joined Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014  — Versalis v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC  — Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision  — Reopening of the procedure  — New statement of objections  — Closure of the procedure  — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/37

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Versalis v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision - Reopening of the procedure - New statement of objections - Closure of the procedure - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 135/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Versalis SpA (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and M. Siragusa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, Agents)

      Re:

   In Case T-241/12, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in a letter of 23 April 2012, informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to reopen the procedure and to adopt a new statement of objections and, in Case T-210/13, application for annulment of Commission decisions C(2013) 1200 final of 26 February 2013 and C(2013) 1199 final of 27 February 2013 to reopen the procedure and to send the applicant a new statement of objections in Case AT. 40032–BR/ESBR — Recidivism, following the partial annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13 are joined for the purposes of the order.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions.

               3.

               Versalis SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-68/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — IR v JQ

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 9 February 2017 — IR v JQ
   (Case C-68/17)
   (2017/C 144/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: IR

      Respondent: JQ

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the church can determine with binding effect that an organisation such as the defendant in the present proceedings, where employees in managerial positions are required to act in good faith and with loyalty, shall differentiate between employees who belong to the church and those who belong to another church or to none at all?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative:

                           a)

                           Must the provision of national law, in this case Paragraph 9(2) of the Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (General Law on equal treatment), according to which unequal treatment of this kind on the basis of the religious affiliation of employees is justified in accordance with the church’s self-concept, be disapplied in these proceedings?

                           b)

                           What requirements apply, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, in respect of a requirement for employees of a church or one of the other organisations mentioned to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-334/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 9 July 2014  — Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 9 July 2014 — Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier
   (Case C-334/14)
   2014/C 303/39
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgian State

      Defendant: Ms Nathalie De Fruytier

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do points (b) and (c) of Article 13(A)(1) of the Sixth VAT directive (1) mean that the transportation of samples and organs, for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system to clinics and laboratories, are not exempt from VAT as services closely related to medical services, namely, as services intended to diagnose, treat and, in so far as is possible, cure diseases or health disorders?

               2.

               Can the activity of transporting samples and organs for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, carried out by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system to clinics and laboratories for medical analysis, qualify for the exemption from VAT provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth VAT directive?

               3.

               Must the concept of other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature, referred to in Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive, be interpreted as covering private companies whose services consist in the transportation of human samples for the purposes of analysis essential to the therapeutic objectives of hospitals and centres for medical treatment?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-168/03: Action brought on 11 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 135/20               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            7.6.2003
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                              27 August 1997, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent.                                     its obligations under Articles 10 and 249 EC and
                                                                                Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/655/EEC ( 1) of
                                                                                30 November 1989, amended by Directive 95/63/EC (2)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of 5 December 1995 Council Directive 95/63/EC of
                                                                                5 December 1995 amending Directive 89/655/EEC con-
—     Declare that, by reserving the term ‘gold’ to items stamped                cerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
      as being of a fineness of 750/000 parts of gold while                      the use of work equipment by workers at work.
      items stamped with a fineness of 375 or 585/000 parts
      of gold are to be termed ‘gold alloy’, the French Republic          2.     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC of
      the EC Treaty
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Article 1(1) of the Disposición Transitoria Única of the royal
                                                                          decree grants a period of 12 months from the entry into force
The requirement at issue prohibits the marketing under the                thereof for any equipment already in use in undertakings to be
name of ‘gold’ of items containing 585 or 375 thousandths                 brought into conformity with the requirements set down in
parts of gold which may be termed such in their Member State              Annex I thereto (which corresponds to Annex I to the
of origin, thus rendering marketing of such items more                    directive). Since the royal decree entered into force on
difficult.                                                                27 August 1997, that period allowed Spanish businesses a
                                                                          transitional period which is much longer than that provided
                                                                          for in Article 4(1)(b) of the directive.
That prohibition cannot be justified by the requirements of
consumer protection and fair trading, since adequate labelling
is sufficient.
                                                                          Articles 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Disposición Transitoria Única
                                                                          provide that, when for specific objective reasons it is impossible
                                                                          in certain sectors for work equipment to be brought into
                                                                          conformity within the 12-month period, the employment
                                                                          authorities, upon the reasoned request of the most representa-
                                                                          tive associations of employers in the sector and after consulting
                                                                          the most representative unions in that sector, may exception-
                                                                          ally authorise a plan to bring work equipment into conformity
Action brought on 11 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                          with Annex I to the royal decree (which corresponds to
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                          Annex I to the directive) of a duration not greater than
                                                                          five years having regard to the seriousness, importance and
                         (Case C-168/03)                                  significance of the objective circumstances relied on. Appli-
                                                                          cations for approval of such a plan were to be submitted, in
                                                                          accordance with that provision, within nine months from the
                         (2003/C 135/30)                                  entry into force of the royal decree (that is to say, by 27 June
                                                                          1998), and the competent employment authority was to take
                                                                          a decision thereon within the ensuing three months.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       The Commission takes the view that that additional transitional
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral, of it Legal Service,            period is incompatible with the requirements of Article 4(1)(b)
acting as Agent.                                                          of the directive and is entirely unjustified.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (1 ) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning
                                                                               the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work
1.    Declare that, by providing in Article 1 of the Disposición               equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within
      Transitoria Única (single transitional provision) of Real                the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC — OJ
      Decreto (Royal Decree) No 1215/1997 of 18 July 1997,                     1989 L 393, p. 13.
      laying down minimum health and safety requirements                  (2 ) Council Directive — OJ 1995 L 335, p. 28.
      for the use of work equipment by workers, an additional
      adjustment period for work equipment already available
      to workers at the undertaking and/or plant prior to


title: Case C-607/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations — Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of the directive)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-607/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations - Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of the directive)
   2012/C 151/14
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and K. Simonsson, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations — Obligation to ensure that those installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits issued in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case C-135/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament (Appeal — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance — Deduction of the amount of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources — Unlimited jurisdiction — Disputes of a financial character)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament
   (Case C-135/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Remuneration - Dependent child allowance - Deduction of the amount of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources - Unlimited jurisdiction - Disputes of a financial character)
   (2008/C 51/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Roderich Weißenfels (represented by: G. Maximini, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, M. Ecker and U. Rösslein, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 Roderich Weißenfels v Parliament, whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 June 2003 deducting from the sum of the double dependent child allowance, granted to the appellant under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, the amount of an allowance of like nature received from another source — Conditions for the application of the rule against overlapping referred to in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations — meaning of ‘allowances of like nature’
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament.

               2.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 26 June 2003 and 28 April 2004.

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay to Mr Weißenfels the arrears of dependent child allowances which he should have received as from 1 July 2003, together with interest at the statutory rate.

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Weißenfels before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and the Court of Justice of the European Communties.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case T-577/15: Action brought on 1 October 2015 — Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v OHIM — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/39

         Action brought on 1 October 2015 — Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez v OHIM — Núcleo de comunicaciones y control (SHERPA)
   (Case T-577/15)
   (2015/C 406/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Xabier Uribe-Etxebarría Jiménez (Erandio, Spain) (represented by: Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Núcleo de comunicaciones y control, SL (Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SHERPA’– Community trade mark No 10 000 339

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2015 in Case R 1135/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

               —

               order OHIM and, where appropriate, the intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 63(1), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95.

               —

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