title: Case C-121/05 P: Appeal brought on 15 March 2005 (fax: 11 March 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-334/03 between Deutsche Post Euro Express GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/16

         Appeal brought on 15 March 2005 (fax: 11 March 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-334/03 between Deutsche Post Euro Express GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.
   (Case C-121/05 P)
   (2005/C 143/24)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-334/03 between Deutsche Post Euro Express GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March 2005 (fax: 11 March 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, represented by A. von Mühlendahl, Vice-President of the Office, and G. Schneider, member of the litigation department in the field of intellectual property.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 January 2005 in Case T-334/03 (1) and dismiss the application;

               2.

               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) submits the following grounds of appeal against the above-mentioned judgment:

               As a result of the considerations set out in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, in so far as it deemed the designation ‘EURO’ to be an indication of the geographical origin of the goods or services, but at the same time ruled that it could only be excluded from registration as a Community trade mark if the geographical origin which is designated by the mark is an ‘essential’ characteristic for the relevant public. This contradicts the clear wording of that article, which excludes from registration indications designating geographical origin without any further qualification. It also follows from Case C-363/99 Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau [2004] ECR II-0000 that all signs or indications which describe the characteristics of goods or services applied for are to be excluded from registration, irrespective of whether those characteristics are ‘essential’.

               As a result of the considerations set out in paragraphs 36 to 43 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, in so far as it deemed the designation ‘PREMIUM’ to be an indication of quality, but at the same time refused to apply that provision to that designation. Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 excludes from registration indications of value without any further qualification, since every competitor of the applicant should be entitled to use indications of value without being adversely affected by trademark rights of third parties to such indications. The Court of First Instance's argument (paragraph 39) that designations such as ‘PREMIUM’ fall to be assessed (only) under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 is mistaken in this case. Since the designation ‘PREMIUM’ already falls within Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 as an indication of quality, there is no need to have further recourse to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation.

               According to the principles laid down in judgments of the Court of Justice, which are referred to in paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal, descriptive elements of a compound trade mark are also descriptive when considered as a whole, unless it is established that the overall designation, when considered as a whole, has a meaning other than that of its individual components. It is obvious in this case that the designation ‘EUROPREMIUM’ — a combination of the two elements ‘EURO’ and ‘PREMIUM’ which is formed according to the rules of common language usage — does not indicate anything in this connection other than that the goods and services applied for are of European origin and of particular quality.

               For the reasons set out above, the contested decision is thus based on an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 and must therefore be set aside.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005, p. 14.


title: Case T-390/11: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Evonik Industries v OHIM Bornemann (EVONIK) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/17

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Evonik Industries v OHIM Bornemann (EVONIK)
   (Case T-390/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 32/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Industries (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Johann Heinrich Bornemann GmbH — Geschäftsbereich Kunststofftechnik Obernkirchen (Obernkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Oldekop, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2011 (Case R 1802/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Johann Heinrich Bornemann GmbH — Geschäftsbereich Kunststofftechnik Obernkirchen and Evonik Industries AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-354/11 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2012 — Maurice Emram v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Guccio Gucci SpA (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the figurative mark G — Trade marks)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/5

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2012 — Maurice Emram v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Guccio Gucci SpA
   (Case C-354/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the figurative mark G - Trade marks)
   2012/C 235/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Maurice Emram (represented by: M. Benavï, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Guccio Gucci SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci, avvocato)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2011 in Case T-187/10 Emram v OHIM dismissing the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2010 (Case R 1281/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Emram — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Application for Community figurative mark G — Likelihood of confusion — Distortion of the evidence — Incorrect assessment of the distinctive character — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Emram shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-297/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — TridonicAtco v OHIM (Intelligent Voltage Guard) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — TridonicAtco v OHIM (Intelligent Voltage Guard)
   (Case T-297/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 313/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: TridonicAtco GmbH & Co. KG (Dornbirn, Austria) (represented initially by: L. Wiltschek, lawyer, later by L. Wiltschek and E. Tremmel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 108/2007-2) concerning an application to register the figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders TridonicAtco & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-456/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia by decision of that court of 20 July 2004 in the case of Agip Petroli SpA against Capitaneria di Porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di Porto di Siracusa, Sezione Staccata di Santa Panagia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, interested party (for the applicant): Arbix Diamone Shipping

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia by decision of that court of 20 July 2004 in the case of Agip Petroli SpA against Capitaneria di Porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di Porto di Siracusa, Sezione Staccata di Santa Panagia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, interested party (for the applicant): Arbix Diamone Shipping
   (Case C-456/04)
   (2005/C 19/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Sicily Regional Administrative Court) (Italy) of 20 July 2004 received at the Court Registry on 29 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Agip Petroli SpA against Capitaneria di Porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di Porto di Siracusa, Sezione Staccata di Santa Panagia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, interested party (for the applicant): Arbix Diamone Shipping on the following question:
   For the purposes of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 3577/92 (1), does the term ‘voyage which follows or precedes the cabotage voyage’ apply only to a voyage which is ‘functionally and commercially autonomous, that is with cargo on board, the final/starting point of which is a foreign port’, as referred to in the contested measure in the present case, or does it also apply to a voyage without cargo on board (that is, a ‘voyage in ballast’)?

      (1)  OJ L 364 of 12.12.1992, p. 7.


title: Case C-518/10: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Marketing authorisation — Medicinal product placed on the market containing only one active ingredient whereas the patent claims a combination of active ingredients)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/8

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-518/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Marketing authorisation - Medicinal product placed on the market containing only one active ingredient whereas the patent claims a combination of active ingredients)
   2012/C 73/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc

      Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) — Interpretation of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Definition of ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Effect of Agreement 89/695/EEC relating to Community patents on the evaluation of those criteria if there is indirect or contributory infringement for the purpose of Article 26 of that agreement

      Operative part of the order

   Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate where the active ingredient specified in the application, even though identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent as an active ingredient forming part of a combination in conjunction with another active ingredient, is not the subject of any claim relating to that active ingredient alone.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case C-526/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 November 2012 — Ványai Józsefné v Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 November 2012 — Ványai Józsefné v Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal
   (Case C-526/12)
   2013/C 79/08
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Józsefné Ványai

      Defendant: Nagyrábé Község Polgármesteri Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?

               2.

               Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?

               3.

               Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?


title: Case C-506/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Rural development support measures — Areas with natural handicaps — On-the-spot controls — Coefficient density of livestock — Counting of animals)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/18

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-506/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1698/2005, (EC) No 1975/2006 and (EC) No 796/2004 - Rural development support measures - Areas with natural handicaps - On-the-spot controls - Coefficient density of livestock - Counting of animals))
   (2017/C 104/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and A. Daly, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case C-443/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Common Market Fertilizers SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Anti-dumping duties — Article 239 of the Customs Code — Remission of import duties — First paragraph of Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Interpretation — Legality — Commission decision — Group of experts meeting in the framework of the Customs Code Committee — Distinct entity in functional terms — Articles 2 and 5(2) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC — Article 4 of the rules of procedure of the Customs Code Committee — Conditions for the application of Article 239 of the Customs Code — No obvious negligence)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Common Market Fertilizers SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-443/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Anti-dumping duties - Article 239 of the Customs Code - Remission of import duties - First paragraph of Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Interpretation - Legality - Commission decision - Group of experts meeting in the framework of the Customs Code Committee - Distinct entity in functional terms - Articles 2 and 5(2) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC - Article 4 of the rules of procedure of the Customs Code Committee - Conditions for the application of Article 239 of the Customs Code - No obvious negligence)
   (2007/C 269/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Common Market Fertilizers SA (represented by: A. Sutton, Barrister, and N. Flandin, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal seeking to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-134/03 and T-135/03 Common Market Fertilizers v Commission by which the Court dismissed the actions for annulment of Commission Decisions C(2002) 5217 final and C(2002) 5218 final of 20 December 2002 declaring the remission of import duties to be unjustified in a particular case.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Common Market Fertilizers SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case T-83/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Chalk v OHIM — Reformed Spirits Company Holdings (CRAIC) (Community trade mark — Community word mark CRAIC — Assignments — Registration of the transfer of the mark — Revocation — Articles 16, 17, 23 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 16, 17, 23 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 31 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Chalk v OHIM — Reformed Spirits Company Holdings (CRAIC)
   (Case T-83/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Community word mark CRAIC - Assignments - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Revocation - Articles 16, 17, 23 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 16, 17, 23 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 31 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2011/C 311/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: David Chalk (Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. James, M. Gilbert, C. Balme, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Reformed Spirits Company Holdings Ltd (Saint Helier, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Morcom QC)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1888/2007-2) relating to an application for registration of the transfer of a Community trade mark following an assignment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr David Chalk to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Reformed Spirits Company Holdings Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case T-161/00: Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/33
      the control of abuses of cartel law pursuant to Article 82           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      EC. However, such monitoring of conduct has no
      additional value whatever, in terms of the promotion of              —     annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting
      competition, as a counter- balance to the tolerated                        the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
      dominance of the market. More wide-reaching commit-                        of the Staff Regulations against the list of officials
      ments, as demanded by the applicant in the course of the                   promoted to grade A 4, published in ‘Administrative
      procedure, have not been given by the parties to the                       Notices’ No 1080 of 13 August 1999, inasmuch as his
      proposed concentration.                                                    name did not appear on that list;
—     In addition, the Commission acted incorrectly from a                 —     consequently, rule that the 1999 procedure for pro-
      procedural point of view. Although significant reser-                      motion to grade A 4 is annulled as regards the applicant;
      vations were expressed in the decision as regards the
      compatibility of the proposed concentration with the                 —     order the defendant to pay compensation of 5 000 euros
      common market, the Commission granted its approval,                        for non-material damage;
      on the basis of wide-ranging and partly unverifiable
      commitments offered by the parties seeking that                      —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      approval, as early on as the initial examination stage. Had
      it acted correctly, however, proceedings should have been
      initiated in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger           Pleas in law and main arguments
      Regulation.
                                                                           In support of his action, the applicant pleads:
—     Lastly, the Commission unlawfully failed to comply
      with the procedural rule laid down in Article 18(1) of               —     the total absence of any statement of reasons for the
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 (1), in that, even                    contested decision and infringement of Article 25(2) of
      after the expiry of the three-week time-limit prescribed in                the Staff Regulations of officials;
      that provision, it constantly had regard to further, altered
      commitments offered by the parties to the proposed
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and
      concentration. This infringed the procedural rights of the
                                                                                manifest error of assessment.
      applicant in particular, since the applicant was required
      to adopt a position within time-limits which became
      ever shorter, and ultimately had scarcely any further
      opportunity to express its views.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 of 1 March 1998 on the
    notifications, time limits and hearings provided for in Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations           Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie Carotti
    between undertakings (OJ 1998 L 61, p. 1).                             against the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                                                                                (Case T-163/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
                          (Case T-161/00)                                  of the European Communities on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie
                                                                           Carotti, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Gaston Vogel
                                                                           and Ferdinand Burg, of the Luxembourg Bar.
                          (2000/C 247/58)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 15 May 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Vassilios Tsarna-                  —     order the Court of Auditors to pay to Ms Carotti the sum
vas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the                 of LFR 50 000, constituting the expenses which she has
Brussels Bar.                                                                    had to incur in order to succeed with her case.


title: Case C-625/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch AG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Proof — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reasonable time — Proportionality)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch AG v European Commission
   (Case C-625/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 104/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Villeroy & Boch AG (represented by: M. Klusmann and T. Kreifels, Rechtsanwälte, assisted by S. Thomas, Professor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Villeroy & Boch AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case C-521/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Appeal — State aid — Aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4, 13 and 20 — Concept of act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 230 EC)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon
   (Case C-521/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 13 and 20 - Concept of ‘act open to challenge’ for the purposes of Article 230 EC)
   (2008/C 223/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (represented by: S. A. Pappas, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent), Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action seeking annulment of the Commission's letter of 2 December 2004 informing the then applicant that no further action would be taken in regard to its complaint alleging that State aid had been granted by the Hellenic Republic in the context of a public contract tendering procedure — Concept of an act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 230 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 September 2006 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki v Commission.

               2.

               Rejects the preliminary plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for it to rule on the pleas in law of Athinaïki Techniki AE, seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 June 2004 to take no further action concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in the disposal of 49 % of the capital of the Casino Mont Parnès.

               4.

               Orders that the costs be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


               11.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/19

         Criteria for the assignment of cases to chambers
   2009/C 270/07
   On 7 October 2009, in accordance with Article 4(4) of the Annex to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 12(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Civil Service Tribunal decided to assign cases, as soon as the application has been lodged, to the First and Second Chambers alternately depending on the order in which they are lodged at the Registry and without prejudice to Articles 13, 14 and 46(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
   A number of cases shall be assigned to the Third Chamber, at regular intervals to be determined at a plenary meeting of the Tribunal.
   The President of the Tribunal may derogate from the above rules on assignment for reasons of connections between cases and to ensure a balanced and coherent workload within the Tribunal.
   The present decision replaces that of 30 September 2008 (1). It shall enter into force on the day following its publication.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008, p. 4.


title: Case C-512/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 4 December 2003 in the case of J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen

text:
21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 47/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Even if an environmental impact assessment is carried out at
                                                                           the outline planning stage, it may be inadequate because it is
                                                                           based on the information provided in the outline planning
                                                                           application which may be insufficient to evaluate the effects of
                                                                           the development as a whole on the environment. Thus, the
The White City Development                                                 impact assessment will be carried out on an incomplete basis.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
The Commission submits that the competent authority could                  (2) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
not reasonably have reached the conclusion that an impact
assessment was unnecessary when it based such a conclusion
principally or solely on the fact that the land in question had
been previously developed. That criterion for excluding the
need of an impact assessment is an innovation of Government
Circular 15/68. Directive 85/337/EEC contains no such test
and it is submitted that, by relying on a ground for excluding an
impact assessment which is not found in the aforementioned
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof
Directive, the United Kingdom has failed to apply Articles 2(1)
                                                                           Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 4 December
and 4(2) of that Directive correctly in the case of the proposed
                                                                           2003 in the case of J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van
urban development project at White City.
                                                                           de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buiten-
                                                                                land te Heerlen
                                                                                (Case C-512/03)
The Crystal Palace Development
                                                                                (2004/C 47/28)
The Commission maintains that, by not requiring an impact
assessment for the Crystal Palace development, the United
Kingdom has exceeded its margin of discretion under Directive              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
85/377/EEC. The Commission submits that the margin of                      European Communities by order of the Gerechthof Herzogen-
discretion afforded a Member State under Article 4(2) of the               busch of 4 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
Directive is not unlimited. The limits of that discretion are              8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
circumscribed by Article 2(1) of the Directive — i.e. an impact            J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
assessment is required where a project, by virtue of its size,             Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen on the
nature or location, is likely to have significant environmental            following questions:
effects. The Commission submits that, according to those
criteria, the project is likely to have such effects.                      1.     Is a foreign taxpayer, who is a resident of a Member State
                                                                                and does not receive any income from employment in
                                                                                the Netherlands, but only from savings and investments,
                                                                                and who is therefore not obliged to pay, and does not
                                                                                pay, any social security contributions to the Netherlands
Multi-stage procedure governing applications for planning                         national insurance schemes, entitled under EC law to
permission                                                                        Netherlands tax credits for national insurance schemes
                                                                                (general old-age insurance, general insurance for depend-
                                                                                ants and general insurance against special medical
                                                                                expenses) in the calculation of his taxable income from
The Commission does not question the legality of dividing the                     savings and investments, in the case where resident
planning process into two stages per se, but submits that the                     taxpayers are entitled to those tax credits in the calculation
manner in which planning authorisation is actually divided                        of their taxable income from savings and investments
into two stages in the United Kingdom leads to results which                      because they are regarded as insured and as obliged to
are incompatible with Directive 85/337/EEC.                                       pay social security contributions to the Netherlands
                                                                                national insurance schemes, even if they do not receive
                                                                                any income in the Netherlands from employment, but
A large urban development project may escape assessment at                        only from savings and investments, and for that reason
the outline planning stage and no impact assessment is                            do not pay any social security contributions in the
possible (under English law) at the second, reserved matters                      Netherlands either?
stage. Consequently, a large urban development project which
is likely to have significant effects on the environment is not            2.     In answering the first question, is it relevant that the
considered as a whole but in separate parts. The practical result                 foreign taxpayer in question earns in excess of or less
is that the likely effects on the environment are not considered                  than 90 % of his family income in the Netherlands? In
in the light of the project as a whole.                                           particular:
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
     —     Is the Schumacker test for residents and non-                      —     by requiring, in connection with the rules applicable
           residents applicable only in the case of subjective or                   to foreign registrations, that private security firms
           person-related tax aspects, such as the right to a                       should:
           personal or family-related tax-free allowance, or
           does it also apply to non-person-related tax aspects,                    (a)  be a legal person in every particular case,
           such as the tax rate?
                                                                                (b) possess a particular amount of share capital,
     —     When deciding whether to treat a non-resident as a                            regardless of the fact that those firms are not
           resident, are Member States allowed to apply a                                subject to the same obligations in the State of
           quantitative rule (such as the 90 % rule), despite the                        their establishment;
           fact that this does not guarantee that all discrimi-
           nation will be removed?
                                                                                (c)  lodge security at the Caja General de Depósitos,
                                                                                regardless of the fact that security may have
3.   Is the right of option as referred to in Article 2.5 of the                         been paid in the Member State of origin,
     Wet IB 2001 an adequate procedural remedy which
     ensures that the party concerned may make use of his
                                                                                (d) have a minimum number of employees;
     rights as guaranteed under the EC Treaty and rules out all
     forms of discrimination?
                                                                              —     by requiring the employees of a foreign private
     If so, is this also an adequate remedy in the present case                     security firm to obtain a new specific permit in
     where the party concerned only receives income from                            Spain when they have already obtained a compar-
     savings and investments, given that the party concerned                        able permit in the State of that firm’s establishment;
     is unable to benefit from the right of option, as has been                     and by not making occupations in the field of
     considered under 4.3?                                                          private security subject to the Community rules on
                                                                                the recognition of professional qualifications,
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and under
                                                                              Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC (2) and
                                                                        2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 8 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-514/03)                                The Spanish legislation concerning private security services
                                                                        contravenes Community legislation, more particularly
                                                                        Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, and also, in connection
                          (2004/C 47/29)                                with recognition of professional qualifications, Directives 89/
                                                                        48/EEC and 92/51/EEC.
                                                                        Undertakings that wish to carry out private security activities
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before               on Spanish soil must be authorised to do so by registering
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 Decem-            with the Ministry of the Interior, which authorisation is granted
ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                 only if certain requirements relating to the form of the
represented by Maria Patakia and Luis Escobar, acting as                undertaking, share capital, the lodging of security in the Caja
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      General de Depósitos and the number of the undertaking’s
                                                                        employees and of its armoured vehicles are satisfied. Moreover,
                                                                        the Spanish legislation requires each and every member of the
                                                                        staff of an undertaking intending to provide private security
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             services in Spain to obtain a specific permit granted if the
                                                                        person satisfies a series of requirements, and produce more
1.   Declare that:                                                      than the evidence provided for in order to ensure that he or
                                                                        she possesses the knowledge and abilities needed for the
                                                                        performance of his or her duties. Those requirements do not
     —     by requiring, in the implementing legislation, that          serve to guarantee the attainment of the objectives pursued,
           private security firms and the members of their staff        which are public safety or the protection of the persons for
           should possess Spanish nationality;                          whom the private security services are provided.


title: Case C-667/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna
   (Case C-667/11)
   2012/C 89/06
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paltrade EOOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (1) of 18 July 2011 permissible, without a customs registration — except for the customs registration of the Single Administrative Document in the BIMIS system — taking place with the registration of the TARIC additional code which is mentioned in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2) of 26 January 2009?

               2.

               What is, in accordance with recital 18 of Regulation No 966/2010, (3) the appropriate amount for the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty during the execution of Regulation No 723/2011?

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2010 L 282, p. 29).


title: Case T-623/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/44

         Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!)
   (Case T-623/15)
   (2016/C 016/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, A. Marx and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!’ — Application No 13 510 123

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2015 in Case R 479/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the proceedings before OHIM.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-56/10: Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi and Leali v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/45

         Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi and Leali v Commission
   (Case T-56/10)
   2010/C 80/71
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA in liquidazione (Brescia, Italy) and Leali SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2009 amending the earlier decision C(2009) 7492 final adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those advanced in Case T-55/10 SP v Commission.


title: Case C-443/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 8 August 2016 — Francisco Rodrigo Sanz v Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 8 August 2016 — Francisco Rodrigo Sanz v Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
   (Case C-443/16)
   (2016/C 410/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francisco Rodrigo Sanz

      Defendant: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC (1) be construed as precluding rules such as those described from allowing a reduction in working hours solely because the person involved is an interim civil servant [(funcionario interino (person appointed to a civil service post on a temporary basis))]?
               If the answer is in the affirmative:
               Can the economic situation, which makes a reduction in expenditure necessary, and which has been compelled by the reduction in the budget appropriation, be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment?
               Can the administration’s prerogative to organise itself be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment?

               2.

               Must clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be construed to the effect that the administration’s prerogative to organise itself is, always and in any event, limited by the obligation not to discriminate against or to treat differently employees in its service, irrespective of whether they are classified as career civil servants, or interim, casual or temporary civil servants?

               3.

               Can the interpretation and application of point 3 of the second additional provision (‘College Lecturers and their integration with University Lecturers’) of Basic Law 4/2007 of 12 April 2007, amending Basic Law 6/2001 of 21 December 2001 relating to Universities (Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades), be construed as being contrary to clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC in so far as, in the process for college lecturers joining the body of university lecturers, college lecturers [appointed on a permanent basis] are allowed to retain all their rights and their full capacity to teach, even though they do not have a doctorate degree, while this is not allowed for interim college lecturers?

               4.

               In so far as the requirement for a doctorate degree is the objective justification claimed for interim college lecturers without such a degree having their working hours reduced to 50 %, which does not, however, apply to non-interim college lecturers who do not have a doctorate degree either, can this be construed as discriminatory and therefore contrary to clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case T-631/11: Action brought on 6 December 2011 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (B BERG)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/39

         Action brought on 6 December 2011 — Caventa v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (B BERG)
   (Case T-631/11)
   2012/C 32/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Caventa AG (Rekingen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 2014/2010-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Caventa AG.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘B BERG’ for goods in Classes 25 and 28.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Anson’s Herrenhaus KG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Christian Berg’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 25 and 35.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and registration refused.

      Pleas in law: There is no similarity between the goods at issue and no likelihood of confusion of the signs at issue.


title: Case C-431/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel de Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) by judgment of 2 November 2001 in the case of Philippe Mertens against État belge

text:
5.1.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/19
2.   Does such a restriction concern exclusively the freedom           2.    If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, in light of the
     to provide services or does it also or solely concern                   considerations set out in the grounds hereof can the
     conditions of access to employment within the meaning                   transitional rules under examination come within the
     of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association                    provision in Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty?
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey?                                             3.    If the answer to Question 2 is negative, in light of the
                                                                             general principles of Community law and in particular
                                                                             those mentioned in the grounds hereof, can the tran-
3.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association                    sitional rules under examination be deemed compatible
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                         with the EC Treaty and the Community legal order?
     of the Association between the European Economic
     Community and Turkey also to be applied to Turkish
     employees of an employer with its seat in Turkey who,
     as long-distance lorry drivers engaged in international
     haulage, regularly pass through a Member State of the
     Community without belonging to the (legitimate) labour
     force of that Member State?
4.   Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
     Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
     of the Association between the European Economic                  Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) by judgment of 2 November
     Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting               2001 in the case of Philippe Mertens against État belge
     a Member State of the Community in general from
     introducing national provisions which, in comparison
     with the position under national law on 1 December                                         (Case C-431/01)
     1980, lay down new restrictions on access to the
     employment market for Turkish workers, or does that
     provision prohibit the introduction of new restrictions                                      (2002/C 3/30)
     only in respect of the employment or continued employ-
     ment of workers who were already legally resident and
     employed in Germany before the entry into force of the
     new restriction?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 2 November 2001 of the
                                                                       Cour d’appel de Mons (6ème chambre fiscale) (Court of
                                                                       Appeal, Mons, 6th fiscal chamber), received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 7 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of Philippe Mertens against État belge (Belgian State), on
                                                                       the following question:
Reference. for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of 15 October
    2001 in the case of Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA                   Does Article 39 and/or Article 43 of the Treaty establishing
                                                                       the European Community preclude legislation by a Member
                        (Case C-428/01)                                State under which, for assessment to tax of individuals, a
                                                                       business loss suffered in that Member State by an individual
                                                                       residing in that Member State in the course of a previous
                          (2002/C 3/29)                                period of assessment may be deducted from the profit of that
                                                                       individual for a subsequent period of assessment, only to the
                                                                       extent that the business loss may not be set off against
                                                                       emoluments relating to that earlier period of assessment
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 arising from a salaried activity carried on by that individual in
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale (District            another Member State, and if the business loss thus set off may
Court) Catania — 4th Civil Section — by order of that court            be deducted neither in that Member State nor in the other
of 15 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry           State from the taxable income of that individual for assessment
on 31 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            to tax of individuals, although if the individual had carried on
Costanzo SpA v Elettrica SpA on the following questions:               his salaried activity in the same Member State as that in which
                                                                       he carries on the self-employed activity, the business losses
                                                                       could be properly and lawfully deducted from the taxable
1.   On an interpretation of Article 87 et seq. EC may                 income of that individual?
     transitional rules, such as those laid down in Article 106
     of Legislative Decree No 270/99, constitute new State aid
     and come within the scope of the prohibition under
     Article 87 EC?


title: Case T-94/98: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — Alferink and Others v Commission (Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers who entered into non-marketing undertakings — Requirement that production be on the initial SLOM holding — Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 — Allegedly ambiguous wording of the applicable provision — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — Alferink and Others v Commission
   (Case T-94/98) (1)

   (Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into non-marketing undertakings - Requirement that production be on the initial SLOM holding - Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 - Allegedly ambiguous wording of the applicable provision - Principle of legal certainty)
   (2008/C 197/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: Alfonsius Alferink, (Heeten, Netherlands), and the other 67 applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, subsequently by H. Bronkhorst, E. Pijnacker Hordijk and J. Sluysmans, and finally by E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn, Agent)
   Re:
   Claims for damages under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the fact that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty when it adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 of 20 April 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1989 L 110, p. 27), which did not provide clearly and precisely that milk production had to be resumed from the initial SLOM holding.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alfonsius Alferink and the other 67 applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 358, 21.11.1998.


title: Case T-232/06: Action brought on 28 August 2006 — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/22

         Action brought on 28 August 2006 — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-232/06)
   (2006/C 261/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of DG TAXUD to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order DG TAXUD to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;

               —

               order DG TAXUD to pay applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of DG TAXUD's decision of 19 June 2006, rejecting its bid filed in response to the open Call for Tenders TAXUD/2005/AO-001 for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to projects of the DG-TAXUD ‘CUST-DEV’ (OJ 2005/S 117-115222) and awarding the same Call for Tender to another bidder.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward that, in the framework of the said tendering procedure, DG TAXUD failed to respect the procedural requirements set out in the Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules, thus resulting in unequal treatment of tenderers and violation of principles of transparency and sound administration. Moreover, DG TAXUD's decision allegedly contained manifest errors of assessment and according to the applicant, by far exceeded the discretion that European Institutions dispose of when evaluating tenders.


title: Case T-496/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2008 — Nortrail Transport v Commission (Customs Union — External Community transit operation — Fishery products originating in Norway — Application for remission and repayment of import duties — Fairness clause — Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 — Special situation — Retroactive opening of tariff quotas)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2008 — Nortrail Transport v Commission
   (Case T-496/04) (1)

   (Customs Union - External Community transit operation - Fishery products originating in Norway - Application for remission and repayment of import duties - Fairness clause - Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 - Special situation - Retroactive opening of tariff quotas)
   (2008/C 285/59)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Nortrail Transport GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Krause, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, then by B. Schima and M. Patakia, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 15/02 of 1 October 2004, finding that the repayment of import duties to the applicant, which are the subject of the application made by the Federal Republic of Germany, is not justified.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nortrail Transport GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay the expenses incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-345/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Modas Cristal v OHIM — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/61

         Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Modas Cristal v OHIM — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL)
   (Case T-345/15)
   (2015/C 302/76)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Modas Cristal, SL (Santa Lucía, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama Anonim Sirketi (Denizli, Turkey)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘KRISTAL’ — Application for registration No 10 574 473

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 341/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision on the ground that the use of the Spanish mark No 2 569 089 ‘MODAS CRISTAL’ for services in Class 35 has been demonstrated and that the new Community trade mark application is incompatible with the Spanish marks No 2 569 089 ‘MODAS CRISTAL’, for services in Class 35, and No 2 763 821 ‘home CRISTAL’, for goods in Class 24;

               —

               order OHIM and any interveners supporting it to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-196/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Granarolo SpA v Ambrosi Emmi France SA
   (Case C-196/15)
   (2015/C 213/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Granarolo SpA

      Defendant: Ambrosi Emmi France SA

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 (1) be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages for the abrupt termination of an established business relationship for the supply of goods over several years to a retailer without a framework contract, nor an exclusivity agreement is a matter relating to tort?

               2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is Article 5(1)(b) of that regulation applicable in determining the place of performance of the obligation at issue in Question 1?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-498/08 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/17

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-498/08 P)
   (2009/C 69/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA (represented by: M. Salvi, L. de Nora, M. Manganiello, P. Rivetta, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of 9 September 2008 of the Court of First Instance in Case T-224/08, notified by fax of 12 September 2008 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the merits;

               —

               In the alternative, in the event that the case is not referred back to the Court of First Instance, uphold the forms of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Incorrect legal assumptions, incorrect reasons for judgment, incorrect application of the legal rule in question, failure to make inquiries (fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, Article 249 EC and Article 254 EC, also in relation to Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms).


title: Case T-378/07: Action brought on 2 October 2007 — CNH Global v OHIM (Figurative mark representing a tractor in red, black and grey)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/43

         Action brought on 2 October 2007 — CNH Global v OHIM (Figurative mark representing a tractor in red, black and grey)
   (Case T-378/07)
   (2007/C 297/88)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: CNH Global NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor)

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

               —

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal No R 1642/2006-1 be annulled in its entirety; and

               —

               the Office pays to the applicant/appellant the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark representing a tractor in red, black and grey for goods in class 12 — application No 3 944 139

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the figurative mark applied for had acquired distinctive character through use.


title: Case T-268/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/30

         Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-268/05)
   (2005/C 229/64)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde, resident in Linkebeek (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 25 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.


title: Case C-597/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-597/10) (1)

   2011/C 340/25
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case T-85/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Position of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/39

         Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Position of two parallel stripes on a shoe)
   (Case T-85/16)
   (2016/C 136/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting of two parallel lines positioned on the outside surface of the upper part of a shoe — Application for registration No 10 477 701

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Case R 3106/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

      principally:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

      in the alternative:

               —

               remit the case to the Defendant ordering a renewed examination independent of the judgment of the General Court in case No. T-145/14;

      in the second alternative:

               —

               remit the case to the Defendant ordering a stay of the proceedings on the outcome of the Applicant’s appeal of the General Court’s decision in case No. T-145/14 to the Court of Justice of the European Union, case No. C-396/15 P, and on delivery of a judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union in said case to conduct its own evaluation of the similarities and differences between the marks to be compared.

      Pleas in law

               —

               the Defendant erred in not making its own assessment of the similarities and differences between the Applicant’s disputed mark and the earlier mark of the Opponent registered under EU trade mark No 3 517 646;

               —

               the Defendant erred in finding that the conditions under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 were fulfilled.


title: Case F-41/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease — Invalidity — Retirement on the ground of invalidity — Statement of reasons — Annulment)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-41/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Social security - Insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease - Invalidity - Retirement on the ground of invalidity - Statement of reasons - Annulment)
   (2009/C 6/88)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofalo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, action for annulment of the Commission decision by which the applicant was retired on grounds of invalidity and of a series of measures connected to that decision and, secondly, a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 30 May 2005 by which Mr Marcuccio was retired on grounds of invalidity;

               2.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mr Marcuccio the sum of EUR 3 000;

               3.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay two thirds of Mr Marcuccio's costs as well as to bear its own costs;

               5.

               orders Mr Marcuccio to bear one third of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 54.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2002 in Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum B.V. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
13.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/31
      (c)  Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 16 April 2002
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                           in Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments
                                                                               N.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/55)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          of 9 April 2002
                                                                           In Case T-64/00: Continental and Overseas Investments N.V.
in Case T-210/93: H. Hepp v Council of the European                        (formerly Jubertrade N.V.), established in Antwerp (Belgium),
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                      represented by Y. van Gerven and I. Bernaerts, lawyers, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk                     the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and J. Stuyck)
— Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion                    — application for the annulment of Commission Decision
            undertakings — No need to adjudicate)                          C(1999)4419 final (REC 4/99) of 14 December 1999 finding
                                                                           that it was appropriate, first, to make post clearance recovery
                                                                           and, secondly, to refuse to refund duties in respect of the
                          (2002/C 169/54)                                  importation of television sets from Turkey — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
                                                                           President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                   (Language of the case: German)                          made an order on 16 April 2002, the operative part of which
                                                                           is as follows:
                                                                           1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
In Case T-210/93: H. Hepp, residing in Villmar-Weyer (Germ-
any), represented by H. Heep, lawyer, against Council of the               2.    The Commission shall pay all the costs.
European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß,
M. Niejahr, H.-J. Rabe and Núñez-Müller) — application for               (1) OJ 149 C 27.5.00.
compensation pursuant to Articles 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now, Article 235
EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss
suffered by the applicant as a result of having been prevented
from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 93, p. 13), supplemented by Commission Regu-                                             of 16 April 2002
lation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ 1984 L 132,
p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                      in Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum
Extended Composition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos,                           B.V. v Commission of the European Communities (1)
President V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 (Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
                                                                                Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.                                           (2002/C 169/56)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ 270 C 19.10.92.                                                     In Case T-204/00: CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum B.V.,
                                                                           represented by R.G. Baron Snouckaert van Schauburg, lawyer,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: R. Tricot) — application
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
for annulment of the Commission’s decision C(98) 241 final                 Commission require importers of ferro-silicon originating in
(REM 13/97) of 4 February 1998 finding that remission of                   those four countries to provide security corresponding to the
duties should be refused as regards imports of television sets             expired anti-dumping duties and to subject their imports to
from Turkey — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 registration, or, in the further alternative, for an order that the
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,           Commission require the said importers to subject their imports
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 April 2002,                to registration — the President of the Court of First Instance
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 has made an order on 27 February 2002, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to give a decision on the present action;
                                                                           1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
2.   There is no need to give a decision on the application by the
     Kingdom of Spain for leave to intervene;
                                                                           2.    The costs are reserved.
3.   The Commission is to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE                                                                 of 4 April 2002
                       of 27 February 2002                                 in Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages and Others v Com-
           mission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Proceedings for interim measures — Admissibility — State
                                                                           aid — Obligation to recover aid — Prima facie case —
(Application for interim measures — Appeal — Referral                                   Urgency — Weighing up of interests)
back to the Court of First Instance — Dumping — Decision
 terminating expiry review — Urgency — Lack of urgency)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/58)
                         (2002/C 169/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages, established in Brussels,                 In Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
Péchiney électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie                     established in Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe,
(France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön (Sweden),                avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid, represented by D. Voille-          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
mot and O. Prost, lawyers, supported by the Kingdom of Spain               schitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for suspension of the
(Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) against Commission of the European               operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and                           of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for
A.P. Bentley), supported by TNC Kazchrome, established in                  Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30),
Almaty (Kazakhstan) and Alloy 2000 SA, established in                      and in the alternative, an application for interim measures —
Luxembourg, represented by J.E. Flynn, Barrister, and J. Magnin            the President of the Court of First Instance, has made an order
and S. Mills, Solicitors, — application for suspension of the              on 4 April 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
operation of Commission Decision of 21 February 2001 (OJ
2001 L 84, p. 36) in so far as it terminates the anti-dumping
proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in              1.    The operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/
the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine                   185/EEC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by
and for an order that the Commission re-impose expired anti-                     Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH is sus-
dumping duties, and in the alternative, for an order that the                    pended until 17 February 2003.