title: Case T-392/07: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Strack v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to confirmatory applications for access to documents and to a case brought before the General Court — Document register — Action for annulment — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Duty to state reasons — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-392/07) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to confirmatory applications for access to documents and to a case brought before the General Court - Document register - Action for annulment - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Duty to state reasons - Non-contractual liability)
   2013/C 55/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Ladenburger and P. Costa de Oliveira, and subsequently by: P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, annulment of all implied and express decisions of the Commission adopted following the initial application for access to documents made by Mr Strack on 20 June 2007 and, secondly, an action for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the implied decisions refusing access;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 25 July 2007 refusing access to an extract from the register;

               3.

               Annuls the decision of 23 October 2007 concerning the OLAF documents in so far as it relates to data concerning legal persons;

               4.

               Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 28 November 2007 and 15 February 2008 concerning the Commission documents (not including the OLAF documents);

               5.

               Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 28 November 2007 and 9 April 2008 concerning the documents connected with Case T-110/04, in so far as they concern, firstly, the removal of data concerning legal persons when the reasons for that removal were not based on Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, secondly, the removal of documents and data on the basis of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001, with the exception of the removal of the names and addresses of the officials of the European Commission Directorate-General ‘Trade’ and the applicant’s accusations made against them in Case T-110/04, and, thirdly, the removal of documents and data on the basis of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

               6.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               7.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of Mr Guido Strack.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case C-407/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2008 by Knauf Gips KG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case T-52/03 Knauf Gips KG v Commission of the European Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/13

         Appeal brought on 19 September 2008 by Knauf Gips KG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case T-52/03 Knauf Gips KG v Commission of the European Commission
   (Case C-407/08 P)
   (2008/C 313/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Knauf Gips KG (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, Rechtsanwälte)

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

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case T-52/03 Knauf Gips KG v Commission in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of the contested Commission Decision of 27 November 2002 in an appropriate manner, and in any event by at least EUR 54,51 million;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal against the judgment, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the appellant against Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002, is based on three pleas in law.

               1.

               By its first plea on appeal, the appellant submits that there was a breach of the rights of the defence, including a breach of the right to a fair hearing. The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance failed to observe the principles that apply with regard to the legal consequences of a refusal to grant access to incriminating documents and the withholding of exculpatory evidence. By the first part of this plea, the appellant submits that the Commission's decision should have been annulled, because the Commission denied the appellant access to incriminating evidence on which the decision was subsequently based. By the second part of the first plea, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal involved a separate breach of the appellant's rights of defence, given that the Commission also illegally withheld exculpatory evidence, which likewise should have led to the annulment of the decision.

               2.

               By its second plea on appeal, the appellant submits that there was an infringement of Article 81(1) EC, due to fundamental breaches of the rules on evidence, namely of the in dubio pro reo principle, as well as breaches of substantive law, namely as regards the elements constituting a concerted practice, which, in the judgment under appeal, led to the assumption — constituting an error of law — that Article 81(1) EC had been breached.

               3.

               By its third plea on appeal, the appellant submits that there was an infringement of the 10 % ceiling under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62. The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly attributed to the appellant the turnover of undertakings which the appellant does not control and which do not control the appellant. The appellant submits that it and those undertakings do not form part of the same economic unit.


title: Case T-346/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (BAÑOFTAL) (Community trade marks — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark BAÑOFTAL — Earlier national word marks KAN-OPHTAL and PAN-OPHTAL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (BAÑOFTAL)
   (Case T-346/09) (1)

   (Community trade marks - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark BAÑOFTAL - Earlier national word marks KAN-OPHTAL and PAN-OPHTAL - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/27
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S.Schneller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alcon Inc. Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Vidal-Quadras Trais de Bes, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2009 (Case R 795/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH and Alcon Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 May 2009 (Case R 795/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.

               3.

               Orders Alcon Inc. to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-207/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Nissan Jidosha KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Figurative mark including the element ‘CVTC’ — Requests for renewal made in respect of some of the goods or services for which the mark is registered — Further period — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 47 — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Nissan Jidosha KK v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-207/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Figurative mark including the element ‘CVTC’ - Requests for renewal made in respect of some of the goods or services for which the mark is registered - Further period - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 47 - Principle of legal certainty))
   (2016/C 314/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Nissan Jidosha KK (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, and D. Cañadas Arcas, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 March 2015 in Nissan Jidosha v OHIM (CVTC) (T-572/12, not published, EU:T:2015:136);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1), relating to a request for renewal of the registration of the European Union figurative mark CVTC;

               3.

               Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Nissan Jidosha KK both in relation to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-572/12 and to the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case T-244/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face in the form of a star) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a face in the form of a star — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face in the form of a star)
   (Case T-244/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a face in the form of a star - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag and C. Albrecht, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2014 (Case R 838/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face in the form of a star.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2014 (Case R 838/2013-1) with regard to the refusal to register the mark applied for in respect of ‘preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; milk products’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-160/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa — Portugal) — João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado português (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses — Meaning of ‘transfer of a business’ — Obligation to make a request for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Alleged infringement of EU law attributable to a court of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law — Rule of national law which makes the right to reparation for the loss or damage sustained as a result of such an infringement conditional on the prior setting aside of the decision that caused that loss or damage)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varas Cíveis de Lisboa — Portugal) — João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado português
   (Case C-160/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses - Meaning of ‘transfer of a business’ - Obligation to make a request for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Alleged infringement of EU law attributable to a court of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law - Rule of national law which makes the right to reparation for the loss or damage sustained as a result of such an infringement conditional on the prior setting aside of the decision that caused that loss or damage))
   (2015/C 363/16)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Varas Cíveis de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others

      Defendant: Estado português

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ encompasses a situation in which an undertaking active on the charter flights market is wound up by its majority shareholder, which is itself an air transport undertaking, and the latter undertaking then takes the place of the undertaking that has been wound up by taking over aircraft leasing contracts and ongoing charter flight contracts, carries on activities previously carried on by the undertaking that has been wound up, reinstates some employees that have hitherto been seconded to that undertaking, assigning them tasks identical to those previously performed, and takes over small items of equipment from the undertaking that has been wound up.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, which are characterised both by the fact that there are conflicting decisions of lower courts or tribunals regarding the interpretation of the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23 and by the fact that that concept frequently gives rise to difficulties of interpretation in the various Member States, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be construed as meaning that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is obliged to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of that concept.

               3.

               EU law and, in particular, the principles laid down by the Court with regard to State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of an infringement of EU law by a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which requires, as a precondition, the setting aside of the decision given by that court or tribunal which caused the loss or damage, when such setting aside is, in practice, impossible.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case T-307/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — TechnoCompound v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/40

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — TechnoCompound v Commission
   (Case T-307/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/55)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-399/09: Action brought on 6 October 2009 — HSE v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/31

         Action brought on 6 October 2009 — HSE v Commission
   (Case T-399/09)
   2009/C 312/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Holding Slovenske elektrarne d.o.o. (HSE) (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: F. Urlesberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1 (g) of the contested decision in so far as it holds the applicant responsible of an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA Agreement;

               —

               annul Article 2 (i) of the contested decision;

               —

                  in eventu, reduce the fine imposed upon the applicant in Article 2 (i) of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision of 22 July 2009 (Case No COMP/39.396 — Calcium and magnesium reagents for the steel and gas industries) in so far as the Commission found the applicant liable of a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA through market sharing, quotas, customer allocation, price fixing and exchanges of sensitive commercial information between suppliers of calcium carbide and magnesium granulates. Alternatively, the applicant seeks the reduction of the fine imposed upon it.
   In support of its claims the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Regulation 1/2003 by committing the following errors in law:

               First, the applicant claims that the Commission may not impute the conduct of TDR Metalurgija d.d. (TDR) to the applicant because HSE and TDR have never formed a single economic entity. In the absence of a rebuttable presumption of liability of the applicant (such presumption would have applied only if HSE had held 100 % in TDR), the Commission has failed to prove that HSE actually exercised decisive control over TDR.

               Second, the applicant argues that the Commission erroneously applied to all parties an increase of the basic amount of the fine by 17 % for deterrence purposes. In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission should have taken into account that a deterrence factor is not justifiable in relation to HSE since the Commission decided to abstain from fining the direct perpetrator TDR (from whom a deterrence amount may have been appropriate) and the applicant was not directly involved in anticompetitive conduct.

               Third, the applicant contends that the Commission disregarded the mitigating circumstances in calculating the amount of the fine as it has not taken into account that the applicant acted, if at all, merely negligently in failing to sufficiently control TDR’s business behaviour in order to avoid an infringement of competition law. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission should have taken into account, as a mitigating circumstance, the fact that TDR as a company together with its collusive business habits were “imposed” on the applicant by way of a political decision on the part of the Slovenian government and that neither did the applicant choose to acquire TDR, nor did it choose to influence its business conduct towards participation in a cartel.


title: Case T-320/00: Action brought on 12 October 2000 by CD Cartondruck GmbH & Co. KG against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/39
—     Errors in the assessment of the legal consequences to be          The present action is for compensation for the damage which
      derived from the wrongful use of the aid granted                  the applicant has suffered, or has yet to suffer in the future, as
                                                                        a result of those penal tariffs.
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC in conjunction with
      Article 88(2) EC                                                  In the applicant’s submission, by issuing Regulation (EC)
                                                                        No 1637/98 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 (2) otherwise
                                                                        than in conformity with the WTO and by not adapting the
                                                                        Community organisation of the market in bananas, the
                                                                        defendants have infringed the law of the World Trade Organis-
                                                                        ation. Those infringements must be taken into account in
                                                                        Community law. That follows, first, from the fact that the
                                                                        reformed organisation of the market in bananas is intended to
                                                                        transpose WTO law, and, secondly, from the very nature of
Action brought on 12 October 2000 by CD Cartondruck                     WTO law and the compulsory disputes resolution mechanism
GmbH & Co. KG against the Council of the European                       itself. The applicant further maintains that the defendants’
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                    conduct infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations, the right to engage freely in economic activity,
                                                                        the right to property and the prohibition of discrimination.
                        (Case T-320/00)                                 The applicant maintains that, in relation to all those infringe-
                                                                        ments, the Commission and the Council acted negligently.
                        (2000/C 355/81)                                 Finally, in the alternative, the applicant also makes a claim for
                                                                        compensation in respect of lawful Community conduct.
                  (Language of the case: German)                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the
                                                                            market in bananas (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28).
An action against the Council of the European Union and                 (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                      laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities              Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
on 12 October 2000 by CD Cartondruck GmbH & Co. KG,                         the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
Obersulm (Germany), represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and
W. Berg, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendants jointly and severally to pay
      the applicant damages of DEM 1 693 727,75 (EUR
      865 989,22) plus 8 % interest from 13 July 2000;                  Action brought on 16 October 2000 by CDA Datenträger
                                                                        Albrechts GmbH against the Commission of the European
—     declare the defendants jointly and severally liable for the                                 Communities
      damage which the applicant will suffer subsequently to
      the bringing of its action by virtue of the fact that the                                  (Case T-324/00)
      competent authorities of the United States of America
      levy higher duties on the applicant’s products than those
      which they would have been entitled to levy if, through                                    (2000/C 355/82)
      the organisation of the market in bananas, the Council
      had not infringed the law of the World Trade Organis-
      ation;                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 16 October 2000 by CDA Daten-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         träger Albrechts GmbH, of Albrechts, Germany, represented
                                                                        by Dr Thomas Schmidt-Kötters, Rechtsanwalt, of Hengeler
                                                                        Mueller Weitzel Wirtz, Düsseldorf, Germany.
The applicant manufactures printed and processed collapsible
cardboard cartons for proprietary products, largely intended
for the US market. As a result of the trade dispute between the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Community and the USA as to the compatibility of
the EC organisation of the market in bananas with the law of            —      annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission’s decision of
the World Trade Organisation, the USA imposed penal tariffs,                   21 June 2000 on aid by Germany to CDA Compact Disc
which also affect the products of the applicant.                               Albrechts GmbH, Thuringia;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2002 in Case T-198/00: Hershey Foods Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark "Kiss device with plume" — Right to be heard — Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Prior registration of the mark in certain Member States)

text:
10.8.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 191/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by
                                                                          Eurobrom BV, established in Rijswijk (Netherlands), Lonza
                          of 5 June 2002                                  GmbH, established in Wuppertal (Germany), Arch Chemi-
                                                                          cals SA, established in Paris, Troy Chemical Company BV,
in Case T-198/00: Hershey Foods Corporation v Office                      established in Maassluis (Netherlands), represented by K. Van
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                     Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, with an address for service
                     and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                              in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities (Agents: R. Wainwright and L. Ström) — application
(Community trade mark — Figurative mark ‘Kiss device                      for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000
with plume’ — Right to be heard — Article 73 of Regulation                of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme
(EC) No 40/94 — Prior registration of the mark in certain                 referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the
                          Member States)                                  European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products
                                                                          (OJ 2000 L 228, p. 6) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                          (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
                         (2002/C 191/42)
                                                                          J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
                                                                          made an order on 29 April 2002, the operative part of which
                   (Language of the case: English)                        is as follows:
In Case T-198/00, Hershey Foods Corporation, established in               1.    The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.
Hershey, Pennsylvania (United States), represented by
R. Wyand, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,              2.    The applicant shall pay its own costs and those of the
v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                  Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, J. Miranda                      interim measures, but with the exception of those attributable
de Sousa and A. Di Carlo): Action brought against the decision                  to the interventions.
of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May                3.    The interveners shall pay their own costs, and shall jointly and
2000 (Case R 391/1999-3), the Court of First Instance (Second                   severally pay those incurred by the defendant as a result of their
Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-                     interventions.
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 2002, in which
it:                                                                       (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 May 2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in Case T-18/01 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                        of 29 April 2002
                                                                          (Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements
in Case T-339/00: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Ver-
                                                                          — Competition — Rejection of complaint — Action mani-
waltungs GmbH v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                festly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
                            munities (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 — Directive 98/8/EC —                                                 (2002/C 191/44)
Biocidal products — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility
               — Person individually concerned)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                         (2002/C 191/43)
                   (Language of the case: English)                        In Case T-18/01 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
                                                                          Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John
                                                                          Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the European Com-
In Case T-339/00: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwal-                munities (Agent: P. Oliver), action for annulment of the
tungs GmbH, established in Kirchheimbolanden (Germany),                   Commission’s decision of 12 January 2001 rejecting the
represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers,                     applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged infringement of


title: Case T-370/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Gemeente Eindhoven v Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/18

         Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Gemeente Eindhoven v Commission
   (Case T-370/13)
   2013/C 274/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Gemeente Eindhoven (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal, M. van Heezik and L. Parret, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the transaction between the applicant and PSV; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant has brought an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU against the Commission’s decision of 6 March 2013 (SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN) — State aid to certain professional Dutch football clubs in 2008 — 2011) (OJ 2013 C 116, p. 19).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration, including the principle of due care.
               The applicant submits that information was supplied to the Commission on 26 and 28 July 2011, following which no further questions were put to the Netherlands authorities. On 6 March 2013 the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure. Owing to the considerable period of time that had elapsed (19 months), and the failure to undertake any further (substantive) consultation, the Commission, as a result of its own acts and omissions, did not have a full picture of the relevant facts at the time when the formal procedure was initiated.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty
               By this plea the applicant submits that it was entitled to proceed on the assumption that the transaction would be assessed within the framework of the Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, (1) as had previously been the case when the Commission had assessed similar transactions.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
               The Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it initiated the formal investigation procedure in the absence of reasonable doubts within the meaning of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 (2) and the case-law. In taking a view on the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, despite further questions arising, the Commission is also failing to have regard to the provisional nature of a decision under Article 6 of Regulation No 659/1999.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an insufficient and/or erroneous statement of reasons
               Further to the third plea in law concerning the existence of a manifest error of assessment, the applicant claims that the contested decision does not satisfy the Commission’s obligation to state reasons, in accordance with Article 296 TFEU.

      (1)  Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (OJ 1997 C 209, p. 3).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: References to the Court for preliminary rulings by the Pretura Circondariale di Trento by orders of 3 February 1997 in the proceedings pending before that court between 1. Epifanio Viscido, 2. Mauro Scandella and Others, and 3. Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others and Ente Poste Italiane (Case C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 11
6 February 1997 by the Commission of the European                            References to the Court for preliminary rulings by the
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                              Pretura Circondariale di Trento by orders of 3 February
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and J. J. Evrard,                   1997 in the proceedings pending before that court
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                          between 1 . Epifanio Viscido, 2. Mauro Scandella and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         Others, and 3 . Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others and
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                                             Ente Poste Italiane
                                                                                (Case C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/19 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by orders of the Pretura Circonda
                                                                             riale di Trento (Magistrate's Court for the District of
— declare that by maintaining in force two circulars                         Trento ), which was received at the Court Registry on
       allowing the maximum levels for nitrates and                          7 February 1997, for preliminary rulings in the cases of
       pesticides prescribed by Article 7 of Council Directive               1 . Epifanio Viscido, 2 . Mauro Scandella and Others, and
       80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of                 3 . Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others and Ente Poste
       water intended for human consumption ( l ) to be                      Italiane, on the following question:
       exceeded, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that Directive,                                     ( a ) whether a legal provision which relieves a particular
                                                                                public economic entity from the obligation of
                                                                                complying with the generally applicable legislation
                                                                                concerning fixed-term employment contracts falls
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                     within the scope of ' aid granted by a Member State or
                                                                                through State resources in any form whatsoever';
                                                                             ( b ) whether, if question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                an aid of that kind should be subject to the
                                                                                preliminary examination procedure under Article 93
                                                                                ( 3 ) of the Treaty;
Council Directive 80/778/EEC is implemented in French                        (c ) whether, where that procedure has not been followed,
law by, inter alia, Decree No 89-3 of 3 January 1989 on                            the prohibition of an aid of that kind can be regarded
water intended for human consumption other than natural                            as directly applicable within the domestic law of the
mineral waters, as amended by Decrees No 90-330 and                                Italian State;
No 91-257 ( 2). That statutory system is complemented by
two circulars from the Minister for Health and Social                        ( d ) whether, in the event of question (c ) being answered in
Security (Ministre de la solidarité, de la santé et la protec                     the affirmative, such a prohibition may be relied on in
tion sociale ), addressed to all regional and departmental                         a dispute between the public economic entity and an
prefects ( 3 ). Those circulars are incompatible with the                          individual who complains of failure to apply to him
Directive in that, first, they permit levels of nitrates,                          the general legislation concerning fixed-term
atrazine and simazine which significantly exceed the                               employment in order to secure conversion of his
maximum permissible concentrations laid down by the                                employment relationship into one of indeterminate
Directive. Secondly, the circulars create a situation of legal                     duration and/or compensation for damage .
uncertainty in the conditions for applying Directive 80/
778/EEC in French territory; they imply that the result
required by the Directive has not been and cannot be
achieved, and that neither consumers, nor operators                          Appeal brought on 10 February 1997 by Association Inter
entrusted with the production or distribution of water for                   nationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et
human consumption, nor the authorities in charge of                          Synthetiques et de Soie Naturelle (Aiuffass ) and Apparel,
ensuring water quality are able to ascertain the precise                     Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT) against the judgment
extent of their respective rights and obligations. Finally,                  delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Fifth Chamber,
the French Government's arguments calling into question                      Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
the policy foundation of the Directive in relation to the                    the European Communities in Case T-3 80/94 between
requirements of public health are both irrelevant as                         Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Fila
regards the obligations imposed by Article 189 of the EC                     ments Artificiels et Synthetiques et de Soie Naturelle ( Aiuf
Treaty and unfounded in fact.                                                fass ) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), on
                                                                             the one hand, and Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great
(') OJ No L 229 , 30 . 8 . 1980, p. 11 .
                                                                                Britain and Northern Ireland, on the other
( 2 ) JORF, 4. 1 . 1989, 13 . 4. 1990 and 8 . 3 . 1991 .
(') DSG/PGE/ 1.D. No 717 — triazine content of water intended                                           ( Case C-55/97 P)
      for human consumption; DGS/PGE/1.D. No 1325 — nitrate
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/20 )
      content of water intended for human consumption.
                                                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
                                                                              1996 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the


title: Case C-167/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Roma (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2015 — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Roma (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2015 — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-167/15)
   (2015/C 245/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Civile di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2004/80/EC (1) (Article 12(2)) be interpreted as precluding national implementing legislation which refers, with regard to the payment of compensation chargeable to the State, to special legal provisions in favour of victims of crime, but does not grant to victims of ordinary violent crimes access to a substantive system of compensation of general scope and governs only procedural aspects, in cross-border cases, of access to that system?

               2.

               Must Directive 2004/80/EC (Article 12(2)) therefore be interpreted as requiring a substantive system of protection of general scope, provided by the State, or in any event laying down a minimum level of such protection and, if that is so, what are the criteria for determining that level?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).


title: Case T-542/12: Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Mikhalchanka v Council

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/17

         Action brought on 18 December 2012 — Mikhalchanka v Council
   (Case T-542/12)
   2013/C 55/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aliaksei Mikhalchanka (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) NO 1041/2012 of 6 November 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-196/11 AX v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2012 C 165, p. 19.


title: Action brought on 17 May 1996 by Georges Tzoanos against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-74/96)

text:
No C 233/ 12          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
Action brought on 17 May 1996 by Georges Tzoanos                      responsibility, in that he was involved only in the selection
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 and technical control of subsidized projects and not in
                                                                      financial control . The Commission's decision was therefore
                        ( Case T-74/96
                                                                      totally irrelevant both in fact and in law and infringed
                          ( 96/C 233 /22 )
                                                                      Article 21 of the Staff Regulations , which required that the
                                                                      applicant should be held responsible only for tasks entrusted
                                                                      to him .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Finally, the applicant considers that the disciplinary
                                                                      procedure was conducted in such a way that he was not able
An action against the Commission of the European                      properly to defend himself, particularly by reason of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     manner in which the hearings were conducted , the
Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 1996 by                documents collated and the questions put, but also by
Georges Tzoanos, residing in Brussels , represented by Eric           reason of the very personality of the officials participating at
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         various stages of the disciplinary proceedings , especially the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                 hearings , and by reason of the existence of parallel criminal
Fort Rheinsheim .                                                     proceedings . Moreover, the multitude of obvious
                                                                      inaccuracies which riddled these proceedings led the
                                                                      Commission to hold against him a series of alleged
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          irregularities that did not in fact exist, and to impose an
                                                                      obviously disproportionate sanction . In the light of the
                                                                      above , the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 86 and
— annul the decision of 22 June 1995 , taking effect on               88 of, and Annex IX to , the Staff Regulations, disregard of
     1 August 1995 and notified on 23 June 1995 , whereby             defence rights and the principle of proportionality, excess of
     the Commission decided to impose on the applicant the            authority and misuse of powers .
     disciplinary sanction in Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the Staff
     Regulations, namely removal from his post without
     reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to retirement
     pension ,
— annul the express rejection of 19 February 1996 of the
     applicant's complaint against the contested decision             Action brought on 22 May 1996 by W against the
     lodged on 21 September 1995 under No R780/95 ,                            Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-78/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/23 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant argues, first, that, contrary to what is stated in      Communities was brought before the Court of First
the reasoning for the contested decision , he has not in any          Instance of the European Communities on 22 May 199 6 by
way compromised his independence or integrity and that,              W, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi ,
furthermore, he was not in a position in which he would be            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
likely to make applications or declarations to the                    Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue
                                                                      Glesener .
Commission , or supply it with information, preliminary or
otherwise . He maintains that the Commission's allegations
against him are either not established, or are established to        The applicant claims that the Court should :
such an insignificant extent that the requirements of the
Staff Regulations are not fulfilled , and adds that he has
committed no fault to justify either the contested decision or       — annul the decision of 20 July 1995 compulsorily
its severity . In his opinion , the contested decision was                ' reassigning' her to another post and , in so far as
adopted on the basis of an incorrect assessment of the facts ,            necessary, annul the decision rejecting her complaint,
thereby infringing Articles 12 , 13 and 14 of the Staff                   taken on 22 February 1996 and notified on 28 February
                                                                          1996 ,
Regulations of officials .
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
Concerning the allegations of administrative irregularities
and budgetary and financial mismanagement during the
exercise of his duties as head of the 'Tourism ' unit, the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant maintains that the Commission imputes
responsibility to him in respect of duties that were not             The applicant, an official assigned to the Publications
entrusted to him and were not within his area of                     Office , challenges the decision of the appointing authority


title: Case T-421/11 R: Order of the judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 3 October 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/35

         Order of the judge of the General Court hearing applications for interim measures of 3 October 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council
   (Case T-421/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 347/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Qualitest FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Marhic and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-456/04: Action brought on 12 November 2004 by Association Française des Opérateurs de Réseaux et Services de Télécommunications – AFORS Télécom against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/27

         Action brought on 12 November 2004 by Association Française des Opérateurs de Réseaux et Services de Télécommunications – AFORS Télécom against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-456/04)
   (2005/C 31/52)
   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 12 November 2004 by Association Française des Opérateurs de Réseaux et Services de Télécommunications – AFORS Télécom, established in Paris, represented by O. Fréget, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2 of Decision C(2004)3060 of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 August 2004 concerning State aid paid by France to France Télécom;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the context of a scheme designed to restore the balance of the French telecommunications company France Télécom, France, at the time the majority shareholder in that company, granted it a shareholder's advance, in order to shore up its own funds, in the form of a credit line of EUR 9,000 million. By the contested decision, the Commission found that the advance in question constituted State aid. However, by Article 2 of that decision, it decided that no measures to recover the amount concerned should be taken.
   The applicant, which claims to represent a large proportion of the alternative telecommunications operators in France, direct competitors of France Télécom, maintains that it is entitled to seek annulment of that article. In support of its action, it claims first of all that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in taking the view that it would be unable to estimate the advantage received by France Télécom as a result of the conduct and statements of the French State. It further alleges that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality, since it would have been less harmful to the market to take an amount lower than the actual value of the advantage and of its effects on competition than to preclude any recovery. The applicant then argues that, in any event, the Commission is not required to evaluate precisely the amount of the aid.
   The applicant also contends that the Commission failed to have regard to the consistent case-law, which allows a derogation from the obligation to recover unlawful aid only where there are exceptional circumstances or where it is absolutely impossible to do so. The applicant also claims that the Commission wrongly considered that recovery of the aid would breach the rights of the defence and also the principle of legitimate expectations.
   The applicant further claims that the Commission breached the principle of transparency in failing to submit to interested third parties, including the applicant itself, certain expert reports presented by France, which played a decisive role in the outcome reached by the Commission.
   The applicant also maintains that the Commission committed an abuse of process by ignoring the constraints imposed by its own guidelines on aid for restructuring. Furthermore, the mere fact of having declared an aid incompatible and having then not demanded its recovery constitutes in itself a misuse of powers, in the applicant's submission. Last, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the obligation to State reasons.


title: Case T-268/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission (State aid — Aid for airlines on account of losses caused by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible, in part, with the common market and ordering recovery of aid paid — Article 87(2)(b) EC — Communication from the Commission of 10 October 2001 on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks of 11 September — Causal connection between the exceptional occurrence and the damage — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies v Commission
   (Case T-268/06) (1)

   (State aid - Aid for airlines on account of losses caused by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible, in part, with the common market and ordering recovery of aid paid - Article 87(2)(b) EC - Communication from the Commission of 10 October 2001 on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks of 11 September - Causal connection between the exceptional occurrence and the damage - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   (2008/C 197/37)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer, T. Soames and G. Goeteyn, Solicitors, S. Mavrogenis and M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and I. Chatzigiannis, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006 concerning a State aid scheme C 39/2003 (ex NN 119/2002) which the Hellenic Republic implemented in favour of airlines following losses suffered between 11 and 14 September 2001.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006 concerning a State aid scheme C 39/2003 (ex NN 119/2002) which the Hellenic Republic implemented in favour of airlines following losses suffered between 11 and 14 September 2001, in so far as they declare incompatible with the common market aid granted to Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE, first, for losses due to the cancellation of the flight to Canada on 15 September 2001, secondly, for losses in respect of its network apart from the North Atlantic and Israel and, thirdly, for revenue lost in respect of carriage of goods, the costs of destruction of sensitive goods, the costs of additional security checks on goods, the costs connected with additional hours worked by staff and the costs connected with additional emergency security measures;

               2.

               Annuls Article 4 of Decision C(2006) 1580 final in so far as it orders the aid mentioned in the preceding paragraph to be recovered;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-378/12: Action brought on 14 August 2012 — Capitalizaciones Mercantiles v OHIM — Leineweber (X)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/35

         Action brought on 14 August 2012 — Capitalizaciones Mercantiles v OHIM — Leineweber (X)
   (Case T-378/12)
   2012/C 366/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Capitalizaciones Mercantiles Ltda (Bogota, Colombia) (represented by: J. Devaureix, and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leineweber GmbH & Co. KG (Herford, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Admit this application for annulment, with all the documents annexed, and the corresponding copies;

               —

               Admit all the pieces of evidence attached to the writ;

               —

               Hold for the applicant, leaving with no effect the decision issued by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2012 in case R 1524/2011-1, regarding CTM application No 7045818, and consequently, confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 25 May 2011 which granted registration of the CTM No 7045818 ‘X’ (figurative) for goods in class 25; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘X’ for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 7045818

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4736609 of the figurative mark ‘X’, for, among others, goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested application for the goods in class 25

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-345/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones v OHIM — Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales (CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL)

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/15

         Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones v OHIM — Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales (CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL)
   (Case T-345/13)
   2013/C 245/18
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 April 2013 in Case R 1935/2012-2, granting Community trade mark No 9 600 313‘CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL’ (MIXTA), and order the defendant and, where appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs, if that other party appears and contests the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Copisa Proyectos y Mantenimientos Industriales, SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with the word elements ‘CPI COPISA INDUSTRIAL’ for services in Class 37 — Application for Community trade mark No 9 600 313

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with the word elements ‘Cpi construcción promociones e instalaciones, s.a.’ and the national registered trade name No 85 647‘Construcción, Promociones e Instalaciones, S.A. — C.P.I.’ for services in Class 37.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-672/11: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — H-Holding AG v Parliament (Action for failure to act — Action for damages — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/48

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2012 — H-Holding AG v Parliament
   (Case T-672/11) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Action for damages - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2013/C 26/96
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: H-Holding AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Závodný, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and P. Schonard, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully failed to commence infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and to call upon OLAF to open an investigation relating to a Czech political party, following its petition of 24 August 2011, and, secondly, action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Parliament’s alleged failure to act.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               H-Holding AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012


title: Case T-326/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Kotug International and Others v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Kotug International and Others v Commission
   (Case T-326/02) (1)

   (2006/C 224/109)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Third Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.


title: Case F-71/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ZZ v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/30

         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ZZ v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case F-71/11)
   2011/C 355/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-M. Bauler, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007 and compensation for non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2007; in the alternative, annul the note of 9 September 2009 established following the annulment of the previous staff report covering the same period;

               —

               annul the decision dismissing the complaint of 14 April 2011;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 2 October 1997 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Council of the European Union (Case C-345/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 357/21
      comply with Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April              DM        Drogeriemarkt            GmbH,    and    Flic    Flac
       1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of           Kinderbekleidungs-Handelsgesellschaft           mbH     against
      genetically modified organisms ('), and Commission                Tiroler Landesregierung ( Government of Tirol ) on the
      Directive 94/5 1/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to                following questions :
      technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on
      the contained use of genetically modified micro                  Is Article 33 ( 1 ) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/
       organisms ( 2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to             EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of
       fulfil its obligations under those Directives,                   the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                        system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (')
                                                                        to be interpreted with regard to the description
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        'characterized as turnover taxes' as precluding the
                                                                        imposition on traders by a Member State of a tourism levy
                                                                        ( contribution ) which has the following features :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        — it is payable by traders with a direct or indirect
                                                                             interest in the tourist industry and therefore by a large
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                      number of, but not all, traders,
out in Case C-320/97 ('); the period prescribed for
transposition expired on 23 October 1991 ( Directive 90/
220/EEC) and 30 April 1995 (Directive 94/5 1 /EC ).                     — it goes to a local tourist association to finance the
                                                                             development of the tourist industry or to a fund to be
                                                                             used for the whole region ( Land),
(>) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
( 2 ) OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994, p . 29 .
(•') OJ C 331 , 1 . 11 . 1997, p. 13 .                                  — the basis of assessment is the yearly turnover with
                                                                             certain exceptions, in particular turnover related to
                                                                             services to customers whose place of residence (seat) is
                                                                             outside the area covered by the legislation, in so far as
                                                                             the services are not for a business situated within the
                                                                             area covered by the legislation (a Bundesland of a
                                                                             Member State composed of federal States ) and not
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs                       services to final consumers, and turnover related to
gerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of 12 August                     other services in so far as they are not supplied
1997 in the case of Wiener Städtische Allgemeine                             exclusively or primarily within the area covered by the
Versicherungs AG, Romed Karl Kleissl, Streiter KG                            legislation ( the Bundesland of the Member State ),
Gasthof 'Post', Alfred Eiter, Stefan Riml, Mag. Josef
Nothdurfter Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft                   — the amount of the levy varies according to the benefit
mbH ( formerly Rasputin Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH ),                         deemed by the legislature to be derived from tourism
Tiroler Röhren- und Metallwerke AG, Elmar Kurz,                              by the sector to which the taxpayer belongs,
Elisabeth Schüller, Anton Gschwentner GesmbH 'Hotel
Schwarzbrunn', Allgemeine Wirtschaftstreuhand- und
Beratungsges. mbH, Kaiserwerke Elektrizitätsversorgungs                 — the amount of the levy is higher in tourist areas than
GesmbH, Miller Optik GesmbH, Michael Khuen-Belasi,                           in others, and
DM Drogeriemarkt GmbH, and Flic Flac Kinder
bekleidungs-Handelsgesellschaft mbH against Tiroler                     — no provision is made for deduction of input tax ?
                            Landesregierung
                           ( Case C-344/97 )                            (') OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                             ( 97/C 357/37 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge                     Action brought on 2 October 1997 by the Federal
richtshof ( Administrative Court), Vienna, of 12 August                 Republic of Germany against the Council of the European
1997, received at the Court Registry on 2 October 1997,                                                   Union
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Wiener Städtische
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, Romed Karl Kleissl, Streiter                                          (Case C-345/97 )
KG Gasthof ' Post', Alfred Eiter, Stefan Riml, Mag. Josef                                           ( 97/C 357/38 )
Nothdurfter Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
mbH         ( formerly   Rasputin Vertriebsgesellschaft    mbH ),
Tiroler Röhren- und Metallwerke AG , Elmar Kurz,                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
Elisabeth Schüller, Anton Gschwentner GesmbH ' Hotel                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Schwarzbrunn ', Allgemeine Wirtschaftstreuhand- und                     Communities on 2 October 1997 by the Federal Republic
Beratungsges . mbH, Kaiserwerke Elektrizitätsversorgungs                of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder and Claus-Dieter
GesmbH, Miller Optik GesmbH, Michael Khuen-Belasi,                      Quassowski, Federal Economics Ministry, D-53107 Bonn.
 ---pagebreak---  C 357/22           I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22 . 11 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           common agricultural policy. The determination of the
                                                                      maximum residue values in food for infants and small
                                                                      children primarily serves the protection of human health
— annul Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997                    and must therefore be effected on the basis of Article 100a
    amending Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/                   of the EC Treaty.
     363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of
    maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
    respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs on        (■) OJ L 184 , 12 . 7. 1997, p. 33 .
    animal origin, and certain products of plant origin,
    including fruit and vegetables ('), in so far as it inserts
    a provision in the second sentence of, respectively
    — Article 1 ( 3 ) of Directive 76/895/EEC,
    — Article 1 (2 ) ( d ) of Directive 86/362/EEC,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Lansratt
                                                                      i Dalarnas Lan by order of that court of 3 September
    — Article 1 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 86/363/EEC, and              1997 in the case of Transwede Airways AB against
                                                                                Riksskatteverket
    — Article 1 (2 ) (e ) of Directive 90/642/EEC,                                                ( Case C-346/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/39 )
    to the effect that the disputes settlement procedure laid
    down in Article 5a of the respective Directives is also
    to apply to food for infants and small children,
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Lansratt i
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                 Dalarnas Lan ( County Administrative Court, Dalarna ) of
                                                                      3 September 1997, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      6 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Transwede Airways AB against Riksskatteverket on the
                                                                      following questions:
The German Government argues that, in so far as the
contested Directive brings food for infants and small
children within the disputes settlement procedure, the                1 . Are the taxation measures described herein, adopted
Council was not entitled to base it on Article 43 of the EC                under Law         1988:1567       on     environmental  tax on
Treaty, but could do so, at best, on the basis of                          domestic air navigation, contrary to Council Directive
Article 100a .                                                             92/81 /EEC ('the Mineral Oils Directive') ( 5 ),
                                                                           Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of which provides that Member States
                                                                           are to exempt from harmonized excise duty mineral
Products falling under the Directives concerning food for                  oils supplied for use as aviation fuel except for private
infants and small children are not agricultural products for               pleasure flying ?
the purposes of the EC Treaty. The decision whether the
products in question are to be classified under Annex II to
the EC Treaty or under a tariff heading not contained in
that Annex can, the Government submits, be made only in               2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can
individual cases ono the basis of the formula for the                      Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Mineral Oils Directive be
particular product. The products covered by Directives 91/                 regarded as having direct effect, so that the provision
321 /EEC and 96/5/EC are to a significant extent not                       can be relied on by an individual against a State
agricultural products, but products which are to be                        authority before a national court ?
classified within Chapters 19 or 21 of the Brussels
nomenclature .
                                                                      3 . If the Mineral Oils Directive is to be applied in the
                                                                           present case, can the taxation measures in question be
Even if a significant proportion of the food for infants and               split up into Community compatible and Community
small children covered by the contested Directives did fall                incompatible parts, owing to the fact that Swedish
under Annex II and thereby became part of the common                       environmental tax is calculated partly on the basis of
agricultural market, it does not necessarily follow that the               fuel consumption and partly on the basis of emissions
rules contribute to the attainment of one or more of the
                                                                           of hydrocarbons and nitric oxides ?
objectives of the common agricultural policy cited in
Article 39 of the Treaty and do not primarily serve other
purposes. In the opinion of the German Government, rules              (') Council Directive 92/81 /EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
whose primary purpose is the protection of human health                   harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral
must be legally based on Article 100a of the EC Treaty,                   oils ( OJ L 316 , 31 . 10 . 1992, p. 12 ).
even if they also concern products which are listed in
Annex II to the Treaty, and may possibly also contribute
to the attainment of one or more of the objectives of the


title: Case T-158/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — Trek Bicycle v OHIM — Audi (ALLTREK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALLTREK — Earlier national word mark TREK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — Trek Bicycle v OHIM — Audi (ALLTREK)
   (Case T-158/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALLTREK - Earlier national word mark TREK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04)
   (2007/C 155/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Trek Bicycle Corp. (Waterloo, Wisconsin, United States) (represented by: J. Kroher and A. Hettenkofer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, B. Müller, subsequently, G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: L. von Zumbusch and M. Groebl, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2005 (Case R 587/2004-4) relating to Opposition Proceedings between Trek Bicycle Corp. and Audi AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 9.7.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 March 2002 in Case C-10/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Community own resources — Import from third countries of goods destined for San Marino)

text:
C 118/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.5.2002
by the employer. That is so, however, only in so far, in particular, as     1.    Dismisses the application;
the said exception in favour of male officials is construed as allowing
those of them who take care of their children by themselves to have         2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
access to that nursery places scheme on the same conditions as female             two thirds of the costs and the Italian Republic to bear one
officials.                                                                        third of the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 19 March 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                  in Case C-13/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of Ireland (1)
                            7 March 2002
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Failure to adhere within the prescribed period to the Berne
                                                                            Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
in Case C-10/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            (Paris Act of 24 July 1971) — Failure to fulfil obligations
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
                                                                            ment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with Article 5 of
                                                                                Protocol 28 to the EEA Agreement)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Community own resources — Import from third countries of
                 goods destined for San Marino)                                                       (2002/C 118/11)
                           (2002/C 118/10)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case C-13/00, Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by K. Banks and M. Desantes, acting as Agents,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Republic of
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Ireland (Agent: initially M.A. Buckley, and, subsequently,
                                                                            D.J. O’Hagan), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                            and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted by M.
                                                                            Hoskins, barrister): Application for a declaration that, by
                                                                            failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January 1995 to the
In Case C-10/00, Commission of the European Communities                     Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. P. Hartvig) v Italian Republic                  Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), Ireland has failed to fulfil
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by I. M. Braguglia): Application for            its obligations under Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty (now,
a declaration that, by not making available to the Commission               after amendment, Article 300(7) EC) in conjunction with
the sum of ITL 29 223 322 226 and by not paying default                     Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on the European
interest on that amount from 1 January 1996, the Italian                    Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), the Court,
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Com-                composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
munity provisions relating to the Communities’ own resources,               F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President                  Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans                         (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;J. Mischo, Advo-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 March 2002, in which it:                                                  19 March 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-176/09: Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2009/95/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Inclusion in the site of Community importance called ‘Estrecho oriental’ of an area of the territorial waters of Gibraltar and of an area of the high seas — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/24

         Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission
   (Case T-176/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2009/95/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Inclusion in the site of Community importance called ‘Estrecho oriental’ of an area of the territorial waters of Gibraltar and of an area of the high seas - Partial annulment - Non-severability - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 211/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Government of Gibraltar (represented by: D. Vaughan and M. Llamas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, Agents, and by D. Wyatt QC and M. Wood, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad and M. Muñoz Pérez, Agents

      Re:

   APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/95/EC of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2009 L 43, p. 393), to the extent that it extends the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (ES6120032) to the territorial waters of Gibraltar (both within and outside Site UKGIB0002) and to an area of the high seas

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Government of Gibraltar shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.