title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 July 1997 in Case T-227/95: AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Consequences of partial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty - Effects of the judgment on persons to whom the decision was addressed who did not bring an action for annulment - Article 176 of the Treaty - Request for partial refund of fines paid)

text:
 No C 252/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 8 . 97
 Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: B.
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson              Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. European Parliament ( Agents:            J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
 Manfred Peter, Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic )              for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 1997,
 — application for annulment of the decision of the                    in which it :
 European Parliament of 22 August 1995 appointing the
 applicant to a post as clerical assistant, in so far as that
 appointment was in grade C 5 — the Court of First                      1 . dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;
 Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
 President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges, A. Mair,
 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             2 . declares that it is unnecessary to proceed to judgment
 9 July 1997, in which it:                                                  on the claim alleging failure to act;
 1 . annuls the Parliament 's decision of 22 August 1995 in
                                                                       3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs, to pay
      so far as it concerns the classification of the applicant             half of the costs incurred by the applicant in
                                                                            connection with the claim for annulment and the
      in grade;
                                                                            whole of the costs incurred by the applicant in
                                                                            connection with the claim alleging failure to act;
 2 . orders the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                       4 . orders the applicant to bear half of the costs which it
 (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .                                          incurred in connection with the claim for annulment;
                                                                       5 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                                                                       (•) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 10 July 1997
in Case T-212/95 : Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento
de España (Oficemen) v. Commission of the European
                           Communities (M                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 (Anti-dumping — Commission proposal to close an anti                                          of 10 July 1997
dumping proceeding without imposing protective measures               in Case T-227/95 : AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and
— Rejection by the Council — Action for annulment —
                    Action for failure to act)                            Others v. Commission of the European Communities (')
                            ( 97/C 252/61 )
                                                                       (Competition — Consequences of partial annulment by
                                                                       the Court of Justice of a decision relating to a proceeding
                                                                       under Article 85 of the Treaty — Effects of the judgment
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                        on persons to whom the decision was addressed who did
                                                                      not bring an action for annulment — Article 176 of the
                                                                             Treaty — Request for partial refund of fines paid)
In Case T-2 12/95 : Asociacion de Fabricantes de Cemento
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/62 )
de Espana ( Oficemen ), established in Madrid, represented
by Jaime Folguera Crespo and Edurne Navarro Varona, of
the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in                                     (Language of the case: English)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, supported by the Kingdom of Spain ( Agents:
initially Gloria Calvo Diaz, subsequently Luis Perez De               In Case T-227/95 : AssiDomän Kraft Products AB, whose
Ayala Becerril ), against Commission of the European                  registered office is in Stockholm, AB Iggesunds Bruk,
Communities (Agents : initially Nicholas Kahn and                     whose registered office is in Ornsköldsvik, Sweden,
Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz, subsequently Nicholas                Korsnäs AB, whose registered office is in Gävle, Sweden,
Kahn and Fernando Castillo De la Torre ) — application,               MoDo Paper AB, whose registered office is in
on the one hand, for annulment of the Commission's                    Ornsköldsvik, Sweden, Södra Cell AB, whose registered
decision to terminate de facto in February 1994 the anti             office is in Växjö, Sweden, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
dumping proceeding initiated in April 1992 at the request             AB, whose registered office is in Falun, Sweden, Svenska
of Oficemen, thereby refusing the protective measures                 Cellulosa AB, whose registered office is in Sundsvall,
requested by that association, and, on the other hand, for            Sweden, represented by John E. Pheasant, solicitor of the
a declaration that, by formally maintaining the said anti            Supreme Court of England and Wales, and Christopohe
dumping procedure open without adopting measures                      Raux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
enabling it formally to be terminated, possibly through the           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
imposition of protective measures, the Commission has                 Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third                    Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ) — application for
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/29
annulment of the Commission 's decision of 4 October                    annual leave — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
1995 rejecting the requests made by the applicants,                     Chamber), composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, acting as
following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined                President of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
Cases C-89/85 , C-104/85 , C-l 14/85 , C-l 16/85 , C-l 17/85            A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
and C-125/85 to C-129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and                        judgment on 10 July 1997, in which it:
Others v. Commission [ 1993 ] ECR 1-1307, for repayment
of the fines imposed on them by Commission Decision 85/                 1 . annuls the decision of the Parliament of 22 May, in
202/EEC of 19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding                          which it considered the applicant's absence on 5 May
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.725 — Wood                          1 995 to be unauthorized and deducted a day from her
pulp ) ( OJ No L 85 , 26 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 ) — the Court of                   annual leave, and the decision of 9 August 1995
First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ),                      confirming that decision;
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 July 1997, in which it:                                  2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                        H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision, contained in the
      letter of 4 October 1995, rejecting the applicant's
      request that it review, in the light of the judgment of
      the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases C-89/85,
      C-104/85, C-l 14/85, C-l 16/85, C-117/85 and C-125/
      85 to C-129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v.
      Commission [1993] ECR 1-1307, the legality of                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of 19 December                                              of 10 July 1997
      1984, relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the
                                                                        in Case T-38/96: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
      EEC Treaty (IV/29. 725 — Wood pulp) in so far as the
      latter relates to them;                                                             the European Communities H
                                                                         (Competition — Action for failure to act — No need for a
2 . dismisses the action as inadmisible in so far as it seeks                   ruling — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)
      the issue of directions to the Commission;                                                   ( 97/C 252/64 )
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                              (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                          In Case T-38/96 : Guérin Automobiles, with its registered
                                                                         office at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                                                                         Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar and of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon, against
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         initially Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Guy
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Charrier, subsequently Giuliano Marenco and Guy
                           of 10 July 1997                               Charrier) — application for ( i ) a declaration that the
                                                                         Commission failed to act, by not addressing a statement of
         in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspari v. European                   objections to Nissan France and ( ii ) compensation for the
                            Parliament (')
                                                                         damage caused to the applicant by that failure to act —
 (Officials — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Medical                 the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
 examination to verify — Conclusions contradicting the                   Composition ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President,
                         medical certificate)                            C. P. Briët and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                            ( 97/C 252/63 )                               10 July 1997, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: French)                         1 . declares that there is no need to rule on the action for
                                                                               failure to act;
 In Case T-36/96 : Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the
 European         Parliament,       residing    at      Sandweiler       2 . dismisses      the remainder of the application as
  ( Luxembourg), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                       inadmissible;
 Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against the
                                                                          3 . orders the Commission to pay its own costs and half
                                                                               of the applicant's costs.
  European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Antonio
  Caiola ) — application for the annulment of the decisions
  of 22 May 1995 and 9 August 1995 , whereby the                          H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
  Parliament considered the applicant's absence on 5 May
  1995 to be unauthorized and deducted a day from her


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-26/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg- Waltershof (Dumping - Potassium permanganate - Reference country)

text:
No C 212/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 7. 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 29 May 1997
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
in Case C-400/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sø- og Handelsret): Handels- og Kontorfunktionaerer                in Case C-26/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
nes Forbund i Danmark, acting on behalf of Helle                        the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Rotexchemie International
Elisabeth Larsson v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on                  Handels GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg
             behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S ( 1 )                                                  Waltershof (')
(Equal treatment of men and women — Directive 76/207/                         (Dumping — Potassium permanganate — Reference
EEC — Conditions governing dismissal — Absence due to                                                   country)
an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement —
       Absence during pregnancy and after confinement)                                              { 97/C 212/08
                             ( 97/C 212/07 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Danish)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-400/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Sø- og Handelsret
 ( Maritime and Commercial Court), Copenhagen, for a                    In Case C-26/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht
court between Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes For                    ( Finance Court) Hamburg ( Germany ), for a preliminary
 bund i Danmark, acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Larsson and Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of                 between Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH &
Føtex Supermarked A/S — on the interpretation of                        Co . and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof — on the
 Articles 5 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC           validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1531 /88 of
 of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle              31 May 1988 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 of equal treatment for men and women as regards access                 imports of potassium permanganate originating in the
 to employment, vocational training and promotion, and                  People's Republic of China and definitively collecting the
 working conditions ( OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ) —             provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on those imports
 the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                 ( OJ No L 138 , 3 . 6 . 1988 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
 President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn                Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
 ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D.                 President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann, J. -P.
 Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz
 Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.                    Hewlett,
 29 May 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                         29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
  Without prejudice to the provisions of national law
 adopted pursuant to Article 2 (3) of Council Directive 76/
 207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of                     Consideration of the question referred has revealed no
  the principle of equal treatment for men and women as                  factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council
  regards access to employment, vocational training and                  Regulation (EEC) No 1531 /88 of 31 May 1988 imposing
 promotion, and working conditions, Article 5 (1 ), in                   a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium
  conjunction with Article 2 (1 ), of that Directive does not            permanganate originating in the People 's Republic of
  preclude dismissals which are the result of absences due to             China and definitively collecting the provisional anti
  an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement, even               dumping duty imposed on those imports.
  where that illness arose during pregnancy and continued
  during and after maternity leave.
                                                                          (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  (') OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case F-62/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 January 2008 — De Fays v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/71

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 January 2008 — De Fays v Commission
   (Case F-62/07) (1)

   (2008/C 64/118)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 53.


title: Case T-511/12: Action brought on 12 November 2012 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Fronsac SW and Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/25

         Action brought on 12 November 2012 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Fronsac SW and Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)
   (Case T-511/12)
   2013/C 38/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Refrigue-confecções para o frio, Lda (Pinhal Novo, Portugal) (represented by: C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fronsac SW and Sixty International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 August 2012 in Case R 2353/2010-2, insofar as that decision upheld the opposition to registration of the mark at issue ‘Refrigue for Cold’ for all the contested goods in Classes 18 and 25;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Refrigue for cold’, for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 — Trade mark application No 5 486 725

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fronsac SW and Sixty International SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘RefrigiWear’ and national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘This RefrigiWear’, for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part and application for registration dismissed in part

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-36/06: Action brought on  26 January 2006  — Bundesverband deutsche Banken e.V. Berlin v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/15

         Action brought on 26 January 2006 — Bundesverband deutsche Banken e.V. Berlin v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-36/06)
   (2006/C 96/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband deutsche Banken e.V. Berlin (Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and K.-S. Scholz, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 6 September 2005 [C(2005)3232 Final] in Case N 248/04 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen;

               —

               order the defendant to pay costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2005)3232 Final of 6 September 2005, in which the Commission determined that the notified transfer of the special Hessian Investment Fund as silent partnership participation to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen (‘Helaba’) does not constitute state aid.
   In support of its application, the applicant advances four pleas.
   First, the applicant contends that the Commission has breached the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC.
   Second, the applicant supports its claim in contending that the defendant, by confirming the appropriateness of the agreed remuneration for the transfer to Helaba, has breached the principle of a private investor in a market economy and, thereby, Article 87(1) EC.
   The applicant further claims that the Commission wrongly deducted the refinancing costs because of the lack of liquidity of the transfer to Helaba. The applicant contends that, for this reason, the Commission has breached the principle of a private investor in a market economy and, thereby, Article 87(1) EC.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the right to a fair hearing has been infringed, on the ground that the Commission failed to open a formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 in respect of the transfer to Helaba (1).

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


title: Case C-95/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel

text:
C 108/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of                 Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products                   by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case
subject to excise duty (1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in            of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the                                                 Abel
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (2) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum                                            (Case C-95/01)
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?
                                                                                (2001/C 108/19)
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).                                                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
(2) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-           Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
    isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992     19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 Febru-
    L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12).                                              ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
                                                                            Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
                                                                            following question:
                                                                            Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                            prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free move-
                                                                            ment and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    another Member State?
cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case
of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national
                de la propriété industrielle (INPI)
                            (Case C-81/01)
                           (2001/C 108/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de                    of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and                                           of Luxembourg
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
                                                                                (Case C-97/01)
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:
                                                                                (2001/C 108/20)
Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 (1) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use              An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the                  brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the              the Commission of the European Communities, represented
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not                      by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical                   address for service in Luxembourg.
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers                The applicant claims that the Court should:
other designations of origin, is protected?
                                                                            —    declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying                   practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC(1), as
    down general rules for the description and presentation of wines             amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of
    and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).                                 Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;
                                                                            —    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-215/13 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/23

         Appeal brought on 23 April 2013 by Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-215/13 P)
   2013/C 171/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Acron OAO, Dorogobuzh OAO (represented by: B. Evtimov, E. Borovikov, avocats, D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Fertilizers Europe

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 in Case T-235/08: Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union;

               —

               Give a final judgment of the merits of the dispute, and annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (1), insofar as it affects the Appellants;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs of the Appellants at both instances;

               —

               Order the intervener Fertilizers Europe to bear its own costs in the proceedings before the General Court, as well as its own costs in the event of its possible intervention in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, and to bear all the costs of the Appellants incurred in connection with its intervention(s).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants submit that the General Court:

               —

               Misinterpreted the first sentence of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, first subparagraph, and thereby the corresponding provision of Article 2.2.1.1, first subparagraph of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 in Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation (‘ADA’);

               —

               Upheld an erroneous legal interpretation and upheld a breach of Article 2(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and thereby of the corresponding provision of Article 2.2 ADA;

               —

               Failed to make a correct legal assessment of the relationship between Article 2(5), second sentence, on the one hand, and Article 2(7)(b) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, on the other hand, and as a result upheld an erroneous legal interpretation of Recitals 3 and 4 of the preamble to Regulation (EC) 1972/2002 and therefore of the second sentence of Article 2(5), first subparagraph, and did not ensure the consistency of the latter interpretation/provision with the ADA

      (1)  OJ L 75, p. 1


title: Case C-397/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 28 — Non-geographic numbers — Access by end-users residing in the Member State for operators to services using non-geographic numbers — Directive 2002/19/EC — Articles 5, 8 and 13 — Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection — Imposition, amendment or withdrawal of obligations — Imposition of obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users — Price control — Undertaking not having significant market power on the market — Directive 2002/21/EC — Resolution of disputes between undertakings — Decision of the national regulatory authority laying down the conditions of cooperation and the pricing procedures for services between undertakings)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
      (Case C-397/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 28 - Non-geographic numbers - Access by end-users residing in the Member State for operators to services using non-geographic numbers - Directive 2002/19/EC - Articles 5, 8 and 13 - Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection - Imposition, amendment or withdrawal of obligations - Imposition of obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users - Price control - Undertaking not having significant market power on the market - Directive 2002/21/EC - Resolution of disputes between undertakings - Decision of the national regulatory authority laying down the conditions of cooperation and the pricing procedures for services between undertakings))
      (2016/C 211/12)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Sąd Najwyższy

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Polkomtel sp. z o.o.

         Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

         Intervening parties: Orange Polska S.A., formerly Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may provide that an operator of a public electronic communications network must ensure that all end-users are able to access non-geographic numbers on its network in that State and not only those of other Member States.

                  2.

                  Articles 5(1) and 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), read in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22, must be interpreted as allowing a national regulatory authority, in resolving a dispute between two operators, to impose on one of them the obligation to ensure that end-users are able to access services using non-geographic numbers provided on the other’s network and to set, on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, pricing procedures for that access between those operators such as those at issue in the main proceedings, provided that those obligations are objective, transparent, proportionate, non-discriminatory, based on the nature of the problem identified and justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), and the procedures provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive have, where applicable, been observed, which it is for the national court to verify.

         (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case C-254/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2006 — Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Bureau Benelux des marques

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2006 — Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Bureau Benelux des marques
   (Case C-254/06)
   (2006/C 212/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft

      Defendant: Bureau Benelux des marques
   Question referred
   Are Articles 3 and 13 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1), to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation from providing that a court hearing an appeal against a decision on an application for a trade mark registration may not check, in respect of each of the goods or services for which registration has been applied for, that none of the grounds for refusal of registration listed in Article 3(1) of the directive applies to the mark and thus reach different conclusions depending on the goods or services concerned, if the authority responsible for registering trade marks has merely issued a blanket refusal covering all the goods and services and, during the procedure before that authority, the applicant has not sought, in the alternative, partial registration for certain goods and services.

      (1)   OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1


title: Case C-55/08: Order of the Court of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)) — Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd, Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/9

         Order of the Court of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)) — Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa v Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd, Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
   (Case C-55/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 134/14
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

      Defendant: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd, Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 43, 49 and 56 EC — National legislation reserving to a particular body the exclusive right to operate games of chance and pool betting and penalising the activity of organising, promoting and collecting (including by Internet) of bets on sporting events — Prohibition on an undertaking based in another Member State operating on line gambling and pool betting from promoting organising and operating such gambling and pool betting by Internet and making the value of the prizes available to winners

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal), by decision of 19 December 2007, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-364/14: Order of the President of the Court of 16 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-364/14) (1)

   (2014/C 431/29)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Action brought on 11 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-216/98)

text:
15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/25
Ð by laying down the amounts of the fees to be collected           meat are carried out does not comply with Directive 93/
    for health controls on the slaughter of animals and            118/EC with regard to points 1, 2 and 5 of Chapter 1 of
    those connected with cutting operations at 50 % of the         the annex to that directive.
    standard Community rates, without giving a reason
    for the reduction in accordance with the requirements
                                                                   (1) OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 15.
    of Chapter 1 of the annex to the Directive,
Ð by exempting poultry meat from the fees for the
    cutting of fresh meat,
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations         Action brought on 11 June 1998 by the Commission of
under the Treaty and Council Directive 93/118/EC of                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the                                      (Case C-216/98)
financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat
and poultry meat, in particular points 1, 2 and 5 of                                        (98/C 258/40)
Chapter 1 of the annex to that Directive.
                                                                   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                before the Court of Justice on 11 June 1998 by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                   by Maria Kondou-Durande and Enrico Traversa, of its
Having made a comparative examination of Presidential              Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Decree No 34 pursuant to which Decision 88/408/EEC                 at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the
and the requirements of the annex to Directive 93/118/EC           Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
were transposed, the Commission considers that the
provisions of that Decree do not conform to Community
law for the following reasons:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
As regards the fees which should be collected for slaughter
inspections, the Greek legislation in question fails to refer      Ð declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force
to the category of solipeds/equidae. That fact constitutes             legislative provisions which require minimum retail
an infringement of point 1(b) of Chapter 1 of the annex to             selling prices for manufactured tobacco to be fixed by
Directive 93/118/EC.                                                   ministerial decisions has not complied with its
                                                                       obligations under Article 9 of Directive 95/59/EC (1) of
                                                                       27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes
                                                                       which affect the consumption of manufactured
The amounts of the fees to be collected for health controls            tobacco;
on the slaughter of animals correspond to 50 % of the
standard Community amounts, although the requirements
laid down in point 5 of the annex are not satisfied. That
fact constitutes an infringement of point 1 of Chapter 1 of        Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
the annex, in conjunction with point 5.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As regards the fee to be collected in respect of the cutting
of fresh meat, Article 34 of the Presidential Decree
exempts poultry from that fee, although provision is made          Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC, which
for such a fee in the Community rules. That fact gives rise        corresponds to Article 5(1) of Directive 72/464/EEC, lays
to a case of infringement in relation to point 2 of                down the principle of the producer's or importer's
Chapter 1 of the annex to Directive 93/118/EC.                     freedom to determine retail selling prices for manufactured
                                                                   tobacco and requires the Member States as far as possible
                                                                   not to influence the formation of prices.
The fees applied for controls connected with cutting
operations are less than the Community fees, although the
requirements laid down by point 2 of Chapter 1 of the              According to Article 45 of Greek Law No 2127 of 5 April
annex to Directive 93/118/EC, in conjunction with point 5,         1993 on the harmonisation with Community law of the
are not satisfied.                                                 tax regime on petrol products, alcohol and alcoholic
                                                                   drinks and manufactured tobacco, retail selling prices for
                                                                   manufactured tobacco consumed within the country are to
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers            be determined freely by tobacco manufacturers. The
that the Greek legislation on fees to be collected when            Minister for Finance is to fix by decision the minimum
health controls and inspections of fresh meat and poultry          retail selling prices for those products, which are to be at
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
least equal to the prices on 1 December 1993 increased by            27 November 1987 in conjunction with Article 29(1) of
20 %.                                                                Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (2) of 22 July
                                                                     1985 to be interpreted as meaning that the additional
                                                                     amount of 20 % of the export refund concerned is to be
                                                                     levied even where the goods put into storage pending
According to the Commission, the conflicting nature of
                                                                     export with a view to advance payment of the refund
the provisions of Article 45 of Law No 2127/1993 gives
                                                                     pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/
rise to doubt as regards the rights and duties of those
                                                                     80 (3) of 4 March 1980 in conjunction with Articles 25
concerned.
                                                                     and 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 are not exported
                                                                     Ð as originally planned Ð but are put back into free
                                                                     circulation in the Community following storage and the
In fact producers and importers are not free to determine            application for payment (Article 29(2) of Regulation
the selling price of their products, since there is a limit,         (EEC) No 3665/87) is withdrawn?
that is to say a minimum price which must be complied
with. That limit is fixed by the Minister for Finance and
corresponds to the selling price of those products as                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
determined for the previous year, increased by 20 %. The             (2) OJ L 205 of 3.8.1985, p. 5.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 62 of 7.3.1980, p. 5.
fact that the fixing of that limit takes place on the basis of
the selling prices which the producers or importers have
determined for previous years is not sufficient to show
that there is no restriction on freedom to determine prices.
Producers or importers do not have freedom to form their
prices but are bound to align them with the prices which
were decided upon in a given year. They cannot,
consequently, sell their products at a price lower than the
minimum price, as fixed by the Minister for Finance.                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre by judgment of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1998 in the case of Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and
                                                                                243 others v SA Renault
Consequently, in so far as the Hellenic Republic prescribes
by ministerial decision a minimum retail selling price for                                  (Case C-218/98)
manufactured tobacco, it prevents manufacturers and
importers from determining that price freely, as they are                                     (98/C 258/42)
entitled to do under Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/
EC, which replaced Article 5 of Directive 72/464/EEC.
(1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre (Industrial Tribunal, Le Havre) of
                                                                     24 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                     on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and 243 others v SA Renault on
                                                                     the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 April 1998
in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ                      Does the principle of equal pay for men and women laid
                        Nordfleisch AG                               down by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and
                                                                     subsequent legislation authorise payment to a pregnant
                       (Case C-217/98)                               woman only, and not to the father of the child, of the sum
                                                                     of FF 7 500 when she takes maternity leave, given that:
                        (98/C 258/41)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               such payment is provided for by the last part of Article 18
European      Communities        by   an    order     of   the       of the collective agreement of 5 July 1991 on social
Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Financial Court) of 7 April             benefits for Renault employees;
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG on the following
question:                                                            Article 19(2) of the agreement provides that employees'
                                                                     salaries continue to be paid during maternity leave?
Is the second subparagraph of Article 33(1)                 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1)                  of


title: Case C-272/11 P: Appeal lodged on 31 May 2011 by Mariyus Noko Ngele against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2011 in Case T-15/10 European Commission v AT, AU, AW, AW

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/2

         Appeal lodged on 31 May 2011 by Mariyus Noko Ngele against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2011 in Case T-15/10 European Commission v AT, AU, AW, AW
   (Case C-272/11 P)
   2012/C 13/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Mariyus Noko Ngele (represented by: F. Sabakunzi, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, AT, AU, AV, AW
   By order of 4 October 2011, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismisses the appeal and orders Mr Noko Ngele to bear his own costs.


title: Case T-279/01: Action brought on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/48                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
                                                                              EUR 25 000 for non-material damage;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 December
      2001 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary sanction          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      referred to in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations,
      namely removal from post without reduction or with-
      drawal of entitlement to retirement pension;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                        of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the general
                                                                        provisions for the implementation of that article. The applicant
                                                                        pleads, moreover, numerous errors and contradictions con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         tained in the staff report, lack of statement of reasons and
                                                                        breach of the rights of defence.
In support of his application, the applicant relies on Article 87
of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of the Annex thereto.
According to the applicant, he was not given a proper hearing
during the disciplinary proceedings leading to the sanction in
question. Moreover, the applicant pleads breach of the obli-
gation to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and               Action brought on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef
breach of the principle of proportionality.                                 against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-279/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/84)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 26 October 2001 by Eric den Hamer
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-278/01)                                 European Communities on 5 November 2001 by Giorgio
                                                                        Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                        by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                         (2002/C 3/83)                                  Luxembourg.
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul in part Decision No 3019 of 13 November 2000
                                                                              of the appointing authority, received on 17 November
                                                                              2000. More precisely, in so far as it awards BEF 25 000 to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     the applicant as compensation for the non-material
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    damage arising from the delay in drawing up his staff
European Communities on 26 October 2001 by Eric den                           reports for the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 and
Hamer, residing in Malines (Belgium), represented by Nicolas                  1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     award the applicant BEF 300 000 by way of damages to
                                                                              compensate for the non-material damage arising from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 6 December                —     award the applicant BEF 100 000 by way of damages to
      2000 definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for             compensate for the non-material damage arising from
      1995/1997;                                                              the delay in definitively drawing up his staff reports for
                                                                              the periods 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission not to add
      to the applicant’s personal file his two staff reports for        —     make an order as to costs, requiring the defendant to pay
      1995/1997;                                                              all costs, charges and fees.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/49
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     annul the decision of the Director of the OPOCE, in
                                                                               his capacity as appointing authority, concerning the
                                                                               promotion of the four officials of the Publications Office
                                                                               in the 2000 promotions procedure, published in the
The applicant in the present case objects to the delay with                    Administrative Notices of 6 April 2000;
which the appointing authority drew up his staff report for the
periods 1995 to 1997 and 1997 to 1999. That delay, in his
view, played a decisive role in his failure to be promoted to
Grade B 1.                                                               —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations,
the general provisions implementing it and breach of the
principle of sound administration. The applicant also pleads
failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of             Pleas in law and main arguments
officials.
                                                                         The applicant seeks, first, compensation for the damage
                                                                         suffered as a result of substantial delay, attributable to the
                                                                         administration, in the reporting procedure for the period
                                                                         1997/1999. He points out in that respect that the reporting
                                                                         procedure should normally have started on 1 April 1999 and
                                                                         ended before 31 December 1999, whereas in fact it did not
Action brought on 8 November 2001 by Hubert Huygens                      commence until December 1999 and was not completed
    against Commission of the European Communities                       until April 2000. Meanwhile, the promotions committee had
                                                                         finished its work, without being in possession of a complete
                                                                         and definitive staff report on the applicant and, at the
                         (Case T-281/01)                                 conclusion of the procedure, the applicant was not promoted
                                                                         to Grade B 1. The applicant is of the view that the fact that the
                                                                         administration did not draw up his staff report in time
                          (2002/C 3/85)                                  constitutes an administrative fault which caused him material
                                                                         damage, inasmuch as the progress of his career may be affected
                                                                         by it, and non-material damage relating to the state of
                   (Language of the case: French)                        uncertainty and unease in which he finds himself with regard
                                                                         to his professional future.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Secondly, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision
European Communities on 8 November 2001 by Hubert                        not to promote him and the decisions to promote 54 other
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie             officials, claiming:
Nyssens, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         —     infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-
                                                                               ment and of sound administration;
—     order the Commission to pay him EUR 27 700 as
      compensation for material damage, in the event that the
      applicant should not obtain his promotion to Grade B 1             —     error of assessment of his merits; and
      in the 2000 promotions procedure on account of the
      absence of a staff report;
                                                                         —     infringement of the guide to staff reporting, inasmuch as
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant                             the system for quantifying marks was applied, contrary
      EUR 3 000 in compensation for non-material damage;                       to Annex I to the guide.
—     annul the decision of the Commission to promote the
      54 officials deemed most worthy of promotion to Grade
      B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure and, in any event,


title: Case T-49/00: Action brought on 8 March 2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto Masiello & Figli v Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/35
The essence of the applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments            The contested regulation, it is claimed, entirely upset the
are similar to those in Cases T-186/97 (1), T-187/97, T-191/97,           existing situation. Its effect is to exclude from the scope of
T-192/97, T-210/97 and T-211/97.                                          code 2001 90 50 mushrooms preserved in vinegar which still
                                                                          have a salt content in excess of 2,5 % even if such salt is added
                                                                          only for the purposes of preparation and not preservation.
(1) OJ 1997 C 318, p. 17.                                                 Those products will henceforth be subjected to the severest
                                                                          tariff conditions laid down for code 2003 10 of the combined
                                                                          nomenclature.
                                                                          In support, the applicant claims:
                                                                          — The Commission lacks competence by virtue of Article 26
                                                                               of the EC Treaty;
Action brought on 8 March 2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto                  — Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, the legal basis of the
Masiello & Figli v Commission of the European Communi-                         contested regulation, has been infringed and misapplied,
                               ties                                            in that the powers of the Commission provided for therein,
                                                                               being of an executive nature, may not be used in order to
                                                                               amend provisions of a substantive nature which define the
                          (Case T-49/00)                                       tariff conditions for goods. Secondly, in this case the
                                                                               requirements for amending the pre-existing provisions are
                                                                               not satisfied;
                         (2000/C 149/67)
                                                                          — The principle of equal treatment has been infringed in that
                                                                               the new regulation is extremely onerous only for the
                                                                               producers and importers of mushrooms which are pre-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             served in vinegar but are prepared using a high salt content.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also considers that the contested regulation
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8 March            contains an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons
2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto Masiello & Figli, represented              and infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle
by Andrea Guarino and Alain Lorang, of the Rome and                       of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Luxembourg Bars respectively.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             (1) OJ L 321 of 14.12.1999, p. 3.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 170 of 28.6.1997, p. 13.
— Annul Commission Regulation No 2626/99;
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant in this case, an importer of preserved vegetables
for human consumption, takes exception to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2626/99 amending Annex I to Council                                              (Case T-50/00)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1). One of
the main products in which it deals is cooked mushrooms of                                         (2000/C 149/68)
the ‘agaricus’ variety preserved in vinegar. Salt is then added to
them, in a concentration varying between 15 and 25 %.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Under the combined nomenclature established by Regulation
No 2685/87, mushrooms of the ‘agaricus’ variety could be                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
classified under three headings. To resolve this problem,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997                     European Communities on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA,
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined            represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
nomenclature was adopted (2).                                             the Rome and Venice Bars.


title: Case C-304/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid for newly listed companies — Recovery)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-304/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid for newly listed companies - Recovery)
   2011/C 63/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, E. Righini and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (notified under document No C(2005) 591) (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limits laid down, all the measures necessary to abolish the aid scheme which was declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case T-692/16: Action brought on 27 September 2016 — CJ v ECDC

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/26

      Action brought on 27 September 2016 — CJ v ECDC
      (Case T-692/16)
      (2016/C 441/31)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and consequently order the ECDC to pay the applicant all emoluments he would have received from 1 May 2012 until 31 December 2014 had the applicant stayed in ECDC’s service, which, pending specification by the ECDC, the applicant provisionally calculates as the sum of EUR 140 000, plus default interest at the statutory rate;

                  —

                  order the ECDC to pay him the sum of EUR 13 000 in compensation for non-material harm;

                  —

                  order the ECDC to bear its own costs, and to pay his costs, in the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECDC breached Article 266 TFEU by incorrectly implementing the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12 CJ v ECDC, and arguing in particular

                              —

                              that, due to the irrevocable change in essential circumstances the ECDC was wrong to give retroactive effect to the contested decision;

                              —

                              that the ECDC breached the principle of proportionality, as the contested decision was neither suitable nor necessary for the achievement of the objective pursued by the annulled 2012 dismissal;

                              —

                              that the ECDC committed a manifest error of assessment in disregarding the recruitment fraud of the head of the ECDC legal service;

                              —

                              that the ECDC breached Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations in dismissing the applicant in reaction to his reporting, in tempore non suspecto shortly before his dismissal, facts which raised the suspicion of financial mismanagement at the ECDC.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, claiming monetary compensation for non-material harm caused by the ECDC’s breach of Article 266 TFEU and by its statement that the applicant has sought to promote nepotism.


title: Case C-200/01 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.10.2001
Involvement of a holding company in the management of its                 Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by the Commission of
subsidiaries must be regarded as an economic activity within the          the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
meaning of Article 4(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of          ed on 6 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added          T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the
tax: uniform basis of assessment, only in so far as it entails carrying                       European Communities
out transactions which are subject to VAT by virtue of Article 2 of
that directive.
                                                                                (Case C-200/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/15)
(1) OJ 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                          An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 May 2001 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, represented by Jürgen Grun-
                                                                          wald, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard
                                                                          Berscheid, Legal Adviser to the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, against the judgment
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-                 delivered on 6 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
tário de Primeira Instancia do Porto, 2.o Juı́zo —                       the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case
1.a Secção, by decision of that court of 7 November 2000                 T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the European
in the case of Caves Costa Verde, L.da against Fazenda                    Communities (1).
                               Pública
                          (Case C-154/01)                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                         (2001/C 289/14)                                        6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 and dismiss the action;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    2.    in the alternative:
European Communities by decision of the Tribunal Tributario                     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance cited in
de 1.a Instância do Porto 2.o Juı́zo — 1.a Secção (Tax Court of                paragraph (1) and refer the case back to the Court of First
First Instance, Oporto, Second Division, First Chamber) of                      Instance;
7 November 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
on 9 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caves
Costa Verde, L.da against Fazenda Pública on the following               3.    order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.
question:
Are the charges assessed under Decree-laws No 26317, of                   Pleas in law and main arguments
30 January 1936, No 40037, of 18 January 1955 and No 321-
A/86, of 25 September 1986 compatible with the Sixth
                                                                          —     Incomplete legal assessment of the basis of the contested
Directive (1), having regard to the fact that according to the
                                                                                decision. Infringement of the prohibition of unjust enrich-
appellant, the charges should be assessed on the basis of
                                                                                ment.
turnover whereas the Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho argues
that they constitute a marketing charge on the sales of wine in
bulk?                                                                     —     Incorrect legal assessment of the collusion between
                                                                                Mr Tzoanos, the Greek undertaking 01-Pliroforiki and
                                                                                the respondent.
In the absence of sufficient information in the order for
reference, the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), by order of              —     Incorrect legal assessment of the Commission’s proposal
11 July 2001, declared the reference for a preliminary ruling                   to include the Studienkreis undertaking in the project.
manifestly inadmissible.
                                                                          —     Failure to examine the legal consequences of a breach of
                                                                                bona fides. As a legal consequence of its assessment the
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                    Court of First Instance ought not to have set aside the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to                  contested decision in its entirety but only in so far as the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                  Commission had thereby refused to participate financially
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).                            in the expenditure which the respondent had lawfully
                                                                                incurred with regard to the sixth and seventh phases of
                                                                                the project but which it had been unable to complete for
                                                                                lack of time.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/9
—    Failure to examine the principles of ‘dolo agit, qui petit,        2.    What criteria must be satisfied for a broadcast of several
     quod statim redditurus est’ and ‘fraus omnia corrumpit’.                 feature films and films made for television to be classified
     In the absence of a legally operative judgment imposing                  as a ‘serial’, derogating from the advertising restrictions
     a penalty the Commission is able to rely only on existing                for feature films and films made for television?
     suspicions and results of investigations, as soon as, and
     in so far as, these are available. This the Commission did         3.    Are broadcasts consisting of several parts which manifest
     in the present proceedings. By excluding, as a legal                     a common concept due to common features of theme,
     objection, application of the legal principle ‘fraus omnia               content and form, and which are broadcast at connected
     corrumpit’ in conjunction with the legal principle ‘dolo                 times, to be regarded as a ‘serial’ for the purposes of
     agit, qui petit, quod statim redditurus est’, in a case such             Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by
     as the present (but without having examined that issue in                Directive 97/36/EEC?
     any detail), and instead calling for the adoption of a new
     decision with a fresh statement of reasons, the Court of           4.    Does the interpretation of the term ‘serial’ for the
     First Instance is in effect obliging the Commission to pay               purposes of Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC as
     so long as its suspicions have not developed into                        amended by Directive 97/36/EEC permit common points
     incontrovertible certainty. As a general rule, however,                  of theme or content of the episodes to be wholly or
     any subsequent claim for repayment would fail on the                     largely regarded as unnecessary and predominantly points
     ground that the debtor has disappeared, no longer has                    of form or form of reception taken as the criterion?
     assets or has become insolvent.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.                    (2) OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
                                                                        Feldkirch by order of that court of 22 June 2001 in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsi-                 the commercial register cases of (1) Hermann Pfanner
sches Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of                  Getränke Gesellschaft mbH and Others and (2) Getränke-
15 June 2001 in the case of RTL Television GmbH against                 betrieb Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Republic of
Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rund-                                               Austria
                                funk
                                                                                (Case C-248/01)
                          (Case C-245/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/17)
                         (2001/C 289/16)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch), Austria, of 22 June
European Communities by order of the Niedersächsisches                  2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Lower Saxony Higher Administrative              2001, for a preliminary ruling in the commercial register cases
Court) of 15 June 2001, which was received at the Court                 of (1) Hermann Pfanner Getränke Gesellschaft mbH and
Registry on 25 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case          Others and (2) Getränkebetrieb Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others
of RTL Television GmbH against Niedersachsische Landesme-               v Republic of Austria on the following questions on the
dienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk on the following questions:           validity of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC (1) and the
                                                                        Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (2):
1.   Does Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC(1) of
     3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions           1.    Is the obligation of general disclosure of the annual
     laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in                 accounts of every capital company regardless of its
     Member States concerning the pursuit of television                       economic circumstances compatible with the fundamental
     broadcasting activities as amended by Directive 97/36/EC                 and human rights guaranteed in Community law, funda-
     of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) of                     mental freedoms and general principles of law of the
     30 June 1997, by restricting advertising breaks, pursue                  Member States, in particular the rights to data protection,
     the objective of protecting the artistic value of feature                freedom of expression, informational self-determination,
     films and films made for television, irrespective of                     private life, protection of business and commercial sec-
     whether films made for television have from the outset                   rets, property and freedom to carry on a trade, private
     been produced for television and provided with breaks                    autonomy and compliance with the requirement of
     designed for the insertion of advertising spots?                         reasonableness (proportionality)?


title: Case T-222/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/20

         Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)
   (Case T-222/15)
   (2015/C 228/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WE CARE’ — Application for registration No 12 610 275

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1933/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-367/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — UPC v Commission

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — UPC v Commission
   (Case T-367/05) (1)

   (2009/C 19/68)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.