title: Case C-198/09: Order of the Court of 9 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/105/EEC — Transparency of measures governing the pricing of medicinal products for human use — Article 4 — Price freeze — Price reduction)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/16

         Order of the Court of 9 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-198/09) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/105/EEC - Transparency of measures governing the pricing of medicinal products for human use - Article 4 - Price freeze - Price reduction)
   2010/C 51/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IFB Stroder Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 89/105/EC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) — Price freeze imposed on medicinal products — Procedures to follow in the case of a price reduction

      Operative part

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is to be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down in that provision are met, the competent authorities of a Member State may adopt general measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products, even if the adoption of those measures is not preceded by a freeze of those prices.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down in that provision are met, the adoption of measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products is possible more than once a year and for several years.

               3.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude measures controlling the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products from being adopted on the basis of predicted expenditure, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are met and that the predictions are based on objective and verifiable data.

               4.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to determine, in accordance with the objective of transparency pursued by that directive and the requirements laid down in that provision, the criteria on the basis of which the review relating to macro-economic conditions, as provided for in that provision, is to be conducted and that those criteria may consist in pharmaceutical expenditure alone, in health expenditure overall or even in other types of expenditure.

               5.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           Member States must, in all cases, provide for the possibility for an undertaking which is concerned by a measure freezing or reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products to apply for a derogation from the price imposed pursuant to such measure;

                           —

                           Member States are to ensure that a reasoned decision on any such application is adopted; and

                           —

                           the genuine participation of the undertaking concerned consists, first, in the submission of an adequate statement of the particular reasons justifying its application for derogation and, second, in the provision of detailed additional information if the information supporting the application is inadequate.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case T-157/03: Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the Secretary-General's decision of 13 June 2002
The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the                     which confirms, without amendment, the applicant's staff
Commission's Decision approving the grant by the United                          report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Kingdom of State aid, in the form of ‘rescue aid’, to British
Energy plc (BE), a generator of electricity in the United                 —      annul the Commission's decision of 13 January 2003
Kingdom. The main source of its electricity is nuclear power.                    rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
                                                                                13 September 2002;
The applicants contend that the contested Decision is unlawful            —      order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 10 000;
in as much as it failed adequately or properly to assess
whether the aid was warranted by serious social difficulties,             —      order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceed-
and whether the amount of aid was restricted to the minimum                      ings.
necessary, both in accordane with point 23(e) of the Guidelines
on State aid for Rescuing and Restructureting firms in diffi-
culty (1).
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In particular, the applicants submit that the defendant institu-          The applicant is an official in DG II of the European Commis-
tion wrongly concluded that, in the absence of the aid in                 sion. With a delay of almost two years, the appellant was the
question, BE would be insolvent and would most certainly                  subject of a staff report for the period 1997 to 1999. That
have to cease operations, without considering whether puttig              report was confirmed by the appeal assessor.
BE into administration would have been an appropriate rescue
option entailing the grant of less aid, nor the possibility
involving the closure of only one or several of its plants as             The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest
opposed to all of them.                                                   error of assessment and misused its powers in drawing up that
                                                                          report. In support of his claims, the applicant also maintains
                                                                          that the Commission failed to comply with Article 43 of the
Moreover, the applicants dissagree with the Commision's                   Staff Regulations, thus giving rise to procedural defects. Finally,
conclusion that nuclear plants cannot be mothballed and that              the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state
BE's plants could not be closed without giving rise to serious            reasons.
concerns over nuclear safety.
Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission have
wrongly concluded that the closure of BE's plants led to a
loss of 20 % of UK electricity generating capacity such as to
threaten security of supply and, in any event, failed to consider         Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the
the reduced impact on generating capacity of closing only one                        Commission of the European Communities
or several of BE's plants.
                                                                                (Case T-163/03)
(1) OJ 1999 No C 288, p. 2.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB, Söder-
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
                                                                          tälje, Sweden, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-157/03)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 4 Mars 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
                         (2003/C 184/84)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 16 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 24 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   —      annul the refusal of the Commission to review the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     arrangement of the divestiture of the shareholding of
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik,                           Volvo in Scania and enforce an immediate divestiture as
residing at Tervuren, Belgium, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer,                 requested during the meeting of the 20th February 2003
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                       and put on in the letter of the 21st February 2003.


title: Case C-557/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/36

         Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-557/08)
   (2009/C 44/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 255, p. 11.


title: Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Lucia Passera against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-217/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/17
Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Ana Maria Moles               As her final plea in support of her application for the
Garria-Ortuzar against the Commission of the European               annulment of the contested decision, the applicant points
                          Communities                               out that there has been a misuse of powers in the present
                       ( Case T-216/95 )                            case, based on the fact that the excessive difficulty of the
                                                                    tests resulted from a wish on the part of the administration
                           96/C 16/37 )
                                                                    not to fill the available posts.
                                                                    The objection of illegality raised against the notice of
               (Language of the case: French)                       competition is based on an alleged infringement of Article
                                                                    1 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 November
1995 by Ana Maria Moles Garcia-Ortuzar, residing in
Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège
Bar .                                                               Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Lucia Passera
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-217/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     ( 96/C 16/38 )
— annul the decision of the competition selection board                               (Language of the case: French)
    not to admit her to the list of successful candidates,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the notice of internal competition COM/B/9/93               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    based on tests,                                                 Instance of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                    1995 by Lucia Passera, residing at Overijse ( Belgium),
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                           represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    — annul the decision of the competition selection board
                                                                         not to admit her to the list of successful candidates,
The applicant, an official of the Commission in grade CI ,
contests both the decision of the selection board in internal
                                                                    — annul the notice of internal competition COM/B/9/93
competition COM/B/9/93 based on tests to exclude her                     based on tests,
from the list of successful candidates and, by way of
objection of illegality, the notice of competition itself.
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
She pleads, first, a breach of the obligation to provide a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
statement of reasons, in that the contested decision fails to
mention either the assessment criteria adopted or the way in        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
which those criteria were applied to her. Moreover, the             in Case T-216/95 .
Court should find that the notice of competition has not
been complied with and that the purpose of the tests has not
been observed, inasmuch as, first, the candidates were asked
questions during the oral interview which bore no relation
to those which they were legitimately entitled to expect, and,
second, those questions had no direct bearing on the
functions to be fulfilled or the applicant's ability to perform     Action brought on 4 December 1995 by Christophe
them.                                                                       Gimenez against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                ( Case T-220/95 )
According to the applicant, the Commission also acted                                           ( 96/C 16/39 )
contrary to the nature of the competition in issue, since the
interviews held by the selection board were based in                                  (Language of the case: French)
particular on the candidates' personal files, whereas the
competition was supposed to have been organized solely on
the basis of tests .                                                An action against the Committee of the Regions was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 4 December 1995 by Christophe Gimenez,
Furthermore, the fact that the applicant, who holds a               residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
university qualification and has been awarded high marks in         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
her staff reports, was not included amongst the successful          at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
candidates demonstrates a manifest error of assessment .            Rheinsheim .


title: Case C-535/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Incorrect designation and inadequate legal protection of special protection areas)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-535/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Incorrect designation and inadequate legal protection of special protection areas)
   2010/C 346/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, E. Pürgy and K. Drechsel, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and of Article 6(2), in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Failure to designate, as a special protection area, an area appropriate for the conservation of bird species (‘Hanság’) and incorrect delimitation of another area (‘Niedere Tauern’) — Failure to ensure that the special protection areas already designated enjoy legal protection in accordance with the requirements of Community law

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by failing to classify the Hanság site in the Province of Burgenland as a special protection area, and to delimit the Niedere Tauern special protection area in the Province of Styria, correctly in accordance with ornithological criteria, under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and

                           —

                           by failing to provide legal protection in accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of Directive 79/409 and Article 6(2), read in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora for the Maltsch, Wiesengebiete im Freiwald, Pfeifer Anger, Oberes Donautal and Untere Traun special protection areas in the Province of Upper Austria and the Verwall special protection area in the Province of Vorarlberg,

                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-328/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo and Others v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/38

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo and Others v Commission
   (Case T-328/08)
   (2008/C 272/76)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo Soc. coop. (Vibo Valentia, Italy), De Leonardo (Vibo Valentia, Italy), Finelli (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-469/98: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral "open skies" agreement with the United States of America — Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
C 323/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           those provisions of the said previously-concluded agree-
                                                                                ments which are incompatible with the EC Treaty,
                                                                                especially Article 52 thereof, and with secondary law, or
                        of 5 November 2002                                        by failing to take all legally possible steps to that end,
                                                                                failed to comply with its obligations under Article 234 of
in Case C-469/98: Commission of the European Communi-                             the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 307 EC)
                   ties v Republic of Finland ( 1)                                and under Article 6 of the Act concerning the conditions
                                                                                of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
                                                                                Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral                       (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1),
‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America —
Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport
market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/                       the Court, composed of: J.P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth
92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the                         Chamber, acting for the President, R. Schintgen (President of
Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                         Chamber), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty                      V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
                        (now Article 10 EC))                                Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; Advocate General,
                                                                            A. Tizzano; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louter-
                                                                            man-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on
                           (2002/C 323/04)                                  5 November 2002, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                         1.    Declares that, by entering into or maintaining in force, despite
                                                                                the renegotiation of the air transport agreement of 29 March
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            1949 and the protocol of 12 May 1980 between the Republic
                    in the European Court Reports)                                of Finland and the United States of America, international
                                                                                commitments with the United States of America
                                                                                —     concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers desig-
In Case C-469/98, Commission of the European Communities                                nated by the United States of America on intra-Com-
(Agents: A. Rosas and F. Benyon) v Republic of Finland (Agent:                          munity routes,
T. Pynnä, assisted by R. Luoma), supported by Kingdom of
the Netherlands (Agents: M. A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel):
Application for                                                                   —     concerning computerised reservation systems offered for
                                                                                use or used in Finnish territory, and
—     as its principal claim, a declaration that, by having
      individually negotiated, initialled and concluded in 1995                   —     recognising the United States of America as having the
      an ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of                               right to prohibit or revoke the exercise of traffic rights in
      America in the field of air transport, the Republic of                            cases where air carriers designated by the Republic of
      Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC                         Finland are not owned by the latter or by Finnish
      Treaty, and in particular Articles 5 (now Article 10 EC)                          nationals, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
      and 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) thereof,                             obligations under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
      and also under secondary law adopted pursuant to                                  Article 10 EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now,
      that Treaty, and in particular Council Regulation (EEC)                           after amendment, Article 43 EC) and under Council
      No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers                           Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares
      (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/                          and rates for air services and Council Regulation (EEC)
      92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers                           No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for
      to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8),                              computerised reservation systems, as amended by Council
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992                               Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993;
      on fares and rates for air services (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 15),
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      on a code of conduct for computerised reservation
      systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended by Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993 (OJ                    3.    Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs;
      1993 L 278, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/
      93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the
      allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14,              4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
      p. 1); and,
—     in the alternative, a declaration that, in so far as the              (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
      1995 agreement cannot be regarded as having radically
      amended and thus replaced the agreements previously
      concluded, the Republic of Finland has, by not rescinding


title: Case C-305/06: Action brought on 13 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/23

         Action brought on 13 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-305/06)
   (2006/C 224/44)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant asks the Court to:

               —

               declare that, by preventing a haulier from using the nearest suitable rail unloading station in order to complete, in the context of combined transport operations between Member States, the final road haulage legs forming an integral part of combined transport operations, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC (1) on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The actions of the Greek authorities which are characterised by protectionism in favour of a branch of the national economy, specifically in favour of the hauliers of Northern Greece, do not justify in any circumstances interference with the exercise of an economic activity safeguarded by legislation such as combined transport within the meaning of Directive 92/106/EEC, which, pursuant to Article 2 thereof, should have been applied from 1 July 1993.

      (1)  OJ L 368 of 17.12.1992, p. 38.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2004 in Case C-151/03 P: Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for damages — Compensation for losses suffered due to maladministration by the Commission — Application of the decisions relating to the association of the OCTs)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 22 June 2004
   in Case C-151/03 P: Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Compensation for losses suffered due to maladministration by the Commission - Application of the decisions relating to the association of the OCTs)
   (2005/C 6/40)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-151/03P: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (Island of Raiatea, French Polynesia) (lawyer: J.-D. des Arcis) the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and M.B. Martenczuk) – appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case T-333/01 Meyer v Commission [2003] ECR II-117, asking for that judgment to be set aside – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J. N. Cunha-Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann, Judges; Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: R. Grass, has given an order on 22 June 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mr Meyer to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case T-819/14: Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Mezhdunaroden tsentar za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystvia v Commission (Action for annulment — Contract concerning Union financial assistance in favour of a project seeking to improve the effectiveness of laws combatting discrimination (GendeRace project) — Debit note — Measure not open to challenge — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/20

         Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Mezhdunaroden tsentar za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystvia v Commission
   (Case T-819/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Contract concerning Union financial assistance in favour of a project seeking to improve the effectiveness of laws combatting discrimination (GendeRace project) - Debit note - Measure not open to challenge - Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 222/24)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Fondatsia ‘Mezhdunaroden tsentar za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystvia’ (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Hristev, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and V. Soloveytchnik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment, first, of the decision contained in the Commission's letter of 22 August 2014 announcing the termination of the audit procedure and the suspension of the recovery of damages in the context of a grant agreement in support of a project and, secondly, of the debit note annexed to that letter and issued by the Commission in order to recover the sum of EUR 34 070,16 paid to the applicant in the context of that project.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 March 1996 in Case T-60/92: Muireann Noonan v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Recruitment - Competition for category C - Refusal to admit to the competition - Candidates holding a university degree)

text:
No C 145/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 5 . 96
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             The applicants claim that the Court should :
                      of 28 March 1996
                                                                     — annul Commission Decision K(95 ) 3319 final, of
in Case T-60/92 : Muireann Noonan v. Commission of the                    29 November 1 995 on special depreciation allowances
                 European Communities ( 1 )                               for aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
(Officials — Recruitment — Competition for category C —                   Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ('EStDV'
Refusal to admit to the competition — Candidates holding a               — income tax implementation Regulation ), inasmuch as
                       university degree)                                 that decision concerns the extension of the validity of
                                                                          that provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
                          ( 96/C 145/16 )
                                                                          1999 ,
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-60/92 : Muireann Noonan, a member of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
temporary staff of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities, represented by James O'Reilly, Senior                   The applicants are an association of airlines and one of its
Counsel, of the Irish Bar, and at the hearing by Onno                members. The membership of the association comprises all
Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service           airlines engaged in the provision of supraregional and
                                                                     international air services which are not State-owned and do
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1
Rue Glesener, against the Commission of the European                 not have their seat in Germany ( including Lufthansa ,
Communities ( Agent: John Forman ) — action for the                  through its subsidiary Condor Flugdienst GmbH ). The
annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open             applicants contended in the proceeding conducted by the
Competition COM/C/741 not to admit the applicant to the              Commission that the period of validity of paragraph 82 f of
                                                                     the EStDV should be extended .
competition, notified to her on 9 June 1992 — the Court of
First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,             Paragraph 82 f of the EStDV regulates the way in which the
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                cost of acquisition of aircraft may be written down over the
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 1 996 , in         course of their normal useful life, that is to say, in the
which it:
                                                                     context of the computation of the profits of an undertaking.
                                                                     The provision affords airlines, to a certain extent, an option
1 . Annuls the decision of the Selection Board in Open               as to the way in which they spread their depreciation volume
    Competition COM/C/741 refusing to admit the                      over the period of depreciation .
    applicant to the tests in the competition.
                                                                     The applicants consider that the contested decision infringes
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                          the rules on competence laid down by the EC Treaty . They
                                                                     argue that paragraph 82 f of the EStDV forms an inherent
H OJ No C 258 , 7 . 10 . 1992 .                                      part of the German tax system . They contend that
                                                                     interference in the tax systems of the Member States is
                                                                     permissible only for the purposes of the approximation of
                                                                     laws, and not for the purposes of monitoring aid.
                                                                     The contested decision breaches the obligation to provide a
         Action brought on 28 February 1996 by                       statement of reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC
Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and              Treaty:
      Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH against the
        Commission of the European Communities                       — its wording and structure are such as to render the
                                                                         arguments contained in it incomprehensible,
                        ( Case T-25/96 )
                          ( 96/C 145/17)                             — the Commission made no findings of fact capable of
                                                                         verification in relation to any tax advantage for
              (Language of the case: German)                              undertakings, any loss of revenue for the State, any
                                                                         distortion of competition and/or any restriction on trade
                                                                         between Member States,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    — the Commission assumed, on the basis of an error in
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February                      reasoning, that Germany had acknowledged that
1996 by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt                     paragraph 82 f of the EStDV was in the nature of an aid
Unternehmen, Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft                      measure ,
mbH, Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,           — the Commission left out of account several expert's
Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in                   reports stating that paragraph 82 f of the EStDV does
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34 b, rue                      not under any circumstances give rise to any tax
Philippe II .                                                            advantage or loss of revenue for the State but merely


title: Joined Cases C-622/10 and 623/10: Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Namur — Belgium) — Rémi Paquot (C-622/10), Adrien Daxhelet (Case C-623/10) v État Belge — SPF Finances

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 June 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Namur — Belgium) — Rémi Paquot (C-622/10), Adrien Daxhelet (Case C-623/10) v État Belge — SPF Finances
   (Joined Cases C-622/10 and 623/10) (1)

   2011/C 232/39
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-196/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014 — Swedish Match North Europe v OHIM — Skruf Snus (Oral snuff packages)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — Swedish Match North Europe v OHIM — Skruf Snus (Oral snuff packages)
   (Case T-196/14)
   2014/C 151/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Swedish Match North Europe AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: H. Wistam and L. Holm, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skruf Snus AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 December 2013 given in Case R 1803/2012-3;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘oral snuff packages’ — registered under No 1265805-0010

      Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceeding

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design lacked an individual character

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested RCD

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 CDR.


title: Case T-11/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2006 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Prima facie cases — Urgency — Weighing up of interests — Partial and conditional suspension)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/46

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2006 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission
   (Case T-11/06 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Prima facie cases - Urgency - Weighing up of interests - Partial and conditional suspension)
   (2006/C 224/99)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Romana Tabacchi (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G.C. Rizza, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Grippini Fournier and F. Amato, agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 2,05 million on the applicant, together with an application for an exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for that fine not being recovered immediately.
   Operative part of the order

               (1)

               The obligation on Romana Tabacchi SpA to provide to the Commission a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed on it by Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) is suspended on the following terms:

                           (a)

                           within a period of two weeks of notification of this order, the applicant shall:

                                       —

                                       provide a bank guarantee of EUR 400 000;

                                       —

                                       pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 200 000;

                           (b)

                           within a period of three months of notification of this order, the applicant shall pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 330 000;

                           (c)

                           with effect from 1 January 2007, the applicant shall pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 100 000 per month until the first of the following two events occurs:

                                       —

                                       payment of the balance of the fine remaining due, together with the interest set out by the Commission in its letter of notification of the decision to impose the fine, dated 9 November 2005;

                                       —

                                       judgment in the main proceedings.

               (2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-165/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/24

         Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
   (Case T-165/16)
   (2016/C 222/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1(4), and 2 to 4 of European Commission Decision (EU) 2016/287 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.26500 - 2012/C (ex 2011/NN, ex CP 227/2008) implemented by Germany for Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH and Ryanair Ltd (OJ 2016 L 59, p. 22); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration, and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants to access the file of the investigation and to put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, because the Commission has failed to establish selectivity.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission erroneously concluded that the arrangements between the airport and the applicants conferred an advantage on the applicants. The Commission erroneously refused to accept the comparator analysis proposed by the applicants and committed manifest errors of assessment and a failure to state reasons in its profitability analysis, by failing to attribute an appropriate value to the marketing services provided under the marketing services agreements; wrongly dismissing the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase marketing services; erroneously dismissing the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes; basing its conclusions on incomplete, unreliable and inappropriate data for its calculation of profitability; and wrongly disregarding the wider benefits of the airport’s Airport Services Agreement with Ryanair.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and AMS was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of the airport (as calculated by the Commission) instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and AMS. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, it failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through the alleged aid, and it failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the grant of the aid.


title: Case C-169/13: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-169/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/43
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-395/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/50

         Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission
   (Case T-395/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the implied refusal of the applicant’s confirmatory application;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to certain documents relating to the trade negotiations between the EU and India.
   In support of its application the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, it claims that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to reply to the confirmatory application within the prescribed time.
   Second, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 and the Treaty by constructively rejecting a confirmatory application without giving any reasons or without giving reasons to the standards required by the Treaty and by the Court.
   Third, it submits that by failing to reply to the confirmatory application the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement and/or committed an error of law.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case T-158/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2008 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark FLEX — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2008 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)
   (Case T-158/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark FLEX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 313/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Adobe Systems Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: M. Graf and F. Wesel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, D. Botis and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2006 (Case R 1430/2005-2) concerning registration of the Community trade mark FLEX No 3 795 011.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Adobe Systems Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case C-214/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 — Sergio Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sissi Rossi Srl (Appeals — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark SISSI ROSSI — Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark MISS ROSSI — Arguments presented for the first time at the hearing — Offers of evidence)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 — Sergio Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sissi Rossi Srl
   (Case C-214/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark SISSI ROSSI - Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark MISS ROSSI - Arguments presented for the first time at the hearing - Offers of evidence)
   (2006/C 224/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Sergio Rossi SpA (represented by: A. Ruo, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Sissi Rossi Srl, established in Castenaso di Villanova (Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, avvocato)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2005 in Case T-169/03 Sergio Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Dismissal of an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of a national and international word mark ‘MISS ROSSI’ for goods within Class 25, against Decision R 569/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 February 2003 setting aside the decision of the Opposition Division refusing to register as a Community word mark ‘SISSI ROSSI’ in respect of goods in classes 14, 15, 5 and 26
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Sergio Rossi SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case C-84/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of 26 February 1999 in the case of 1. Amsterdamsche Football Club 'AJAX', 2. Langenberg Participaties B.V., also trading under the name Fan Promotions, v 1. S. C. Reule, 2. S. J. Reule, and 3. Fan Image B.V.

text:
C 136/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.5.1999
7. Can the rule in Sections 24(2) JAG and 14(a) JAO be                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
    justified for the purposes of Article 2(4) of Directive            Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 5 March 1999
    76/207/EEC merely on the ground that it counterbalances            in the case of 1. V.O.F. Schieving-Nijstad, 2. W. G.
    disadvantages not faced by women as they are not subject                Schieving and 3. H. Nijstad against R. Groeneveld
    to a duty of service?
                                                                                (Case C-89/99)
8. Can Article 6 of Directive 76/207/EEC found a right of
    access to training where refusal of access is based on                                     (1999/C 136/22)
    discrimination and there are no other available sanctions
    in the form of rights to compensation?                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                         Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 5 March
                                                                       1999, received at the Court Registry on 15 March 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of 1. V.O.F. Schieving-Nijstad, 2.
                                                                       W. G. Schieving and 3. H. Nijstad against R. Groeneveld on
                                                                       the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                       1. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
Nederlanden by judgment of 26 February 1999 in the case
                                                                           Article 50(6), have direct effect?
of 1. Amsterdamsche Football Club ‘AJAX ’, 2. Langenberg
Participaties B.V., also trading under the name Fan Pro-               2. Is Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement to be interpreted
motions, v 1. S. C. Reule, 2. S. J. Reule, and 3. Fan Image                as meaning that provisional measures, within the meaning
                               B.V.                                        of subparagraphs (1) and (2) of that provision, must
                                                                           automatically lapse by operation of law either in the event
                         (Case C-84/99)                                    that the substantive proceedings are not instituted within
                                                                           the period prescribed for their commencement in the
                        (1999/C 136/20)                                    provisional measure or, in the absence of the determination
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     of such a period, where the substantive proceedings are
European Communities by judgment of 26 February 1999 of                    not commenced within 20 working days or 31 calendar
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                        days (whichever is the longer period); alternatively, in order
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on                  for the provisional measure to lapse, is it (invariably)
9 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                      necessary for an appeal to have been lodged by the party
1. Amsterdamsche Football Club ‘AJAX’, 2. Langenberg Partici-              against whom that measure has been ordered?
paties B.V., also trading under the name Fan Promotions, v             3. Where the time-limit within which the substantive pro-
1. S. C. Reule, 2. S. J. Reule, and 3. Fan Image B.V. on the               ceedings must be brought is not prescribed in the pro-
following question: Does Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement              visional measures ordered, does it commence on:
have direct effect?
                                                                           (a) the day after the date on which the court ordered the
                                                                                provisional measure in question; or
                                                                           (b) the day after the date on which the decision ordering
                                                                                the provisional measure was served on the defendant;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                           or
Grande Instance, Béthune, by judgment of that court of
24 March 1998 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against                    (c) the day after the date on which the decision ordering
              the Direction des Services Fiscaux                                the provisional measure became definitive and no
                                                                                longer open to challenge; or
                         (Case C-88/99)
                                                                           (d) at any other point in time?
                        (1999/C 136/21)                                4. Where a court orders a provisional measure, must it of its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     own motion fix a time-limit within which substantive
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                        proceedings are to be instituted, or may it fix such a
Grande Instance (High Court), Béthune of 24 March 1998,                    time-limit only if an application is made to that effect?
received at the Court Registry on 15 March 1999, for a                 5. Where a court is called upon in appeal proceedings to
preliminary ruling in the case of Roquette Frères SA against               adjudicate on a measure ordered by a lower court in
the Direction des Services Fiscaux (Tax Department). The                   proceedings at first instance, and that appellate court
Tribunal de Grande Instance, Béthune seeks a ruling from the               confirms that measure, is it open to the appellate court to
Court of Justice on the legality of Article 190 of the Livre des           prescribe, either of its own motion or on application by
Procédures Fiscales (Book of Tax Procedures) and, in particular,           one of the parties, a time-limit within the meaning
on the question whether the French Government was entitled,                hereinbefore referred to, if the court seised of the matter at
under Community law, to make a distinction between the date                first instance has not done so?
on which an action became time-barred and the date on which
recovery became time-barred, entailing a difference in the             6. Is Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement applicable where that
treatment of actions under national law and actions com-                   agreement enters into force in the Contracting State
menced on the basis of a judgment of the Court of Justice of               concerned on a date following the closure of the trial
the European Communities in which a provision of national                  procedure at first instance but before the court seised of
law was found to be illegal.                                               the first-instance proceedings has delivered its decision?


title: Case F-64/06: Action brought on  22 May 2006  — Bergström v Commission

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/36

         Action brought on 22 May 2006 — Bergström v Commission
   (Case F-64/06)
   (2006/C 165/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ragnar Bergström (Linkebeek, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annul the specific decision on a transfer from temporary staff status to official status reflected in an instrument of appointment taking effect on 16 September 2005, notified on 28 September 2005;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was informed on 26 April 2004 that he had been successful in open competition COM/A/3/02, the notice for which was published on 25 July 2002, to form a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in career bracket A7/A6. After the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, he was appointed as an official in the same post he occupied as a member of the temporary staff in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   In support of his action, the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant also claims infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of the protection of acquired rights and the principle of equal treatment between officials in the same grade or career bracket.


title: Case T-30/12: Action brought on 19 January 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/28

         Action brought on 19 January 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission
   (Case T-30/12)
   2012/C 89/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 5 October 2011 rejecting the tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 by IDT Biologika GmbH in response to the call for tenders, reference EuropeAid/130686/C/SUP/RS Re-launch LOT 1, for the supply of a rabies vaccine to the beneficiary Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Supply of the Republic of Serbia, and awarding the contract in question to a consortium of various companies led by ‘Biovet a. s.’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action the applicant alleges infringement of Article 252(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2342/2002 (1) as the applicant takes the view that the successful tender does not fulfil the technical requirements specified in the tender documents with regard to the requisite non-virulence to humans of the vaccine offered and with regard to the requisite authorisations and should not therefore have been taken into account.
   Furthermore, the taking into account of the successful tender of the consortium led by ‘Biovet a. s.’ constitutes discrimination as regards price comparison since the applicant’s tender alone satisfies all the actual requirements made with regard to the technical specifications in respect of the award procedure at issue and is therefore the only tender in the procedure which is in order.

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


title: Case C-516/07: Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/8

         Action brought on 22 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-516/07)
   (2008/C 37/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S.Pardo Quintillán, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to identify all the competent authorities for the application of the rules of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) and (7) of the directive; and

               —

               by failing to communicate to the Commission the list of all the competent authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(8) of Directive 2000/60/EC;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission's application is based on Article 3 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
   According to Article 3(2) and (7) and (8), the Member States are required to identify the competent authorities for the application of the rules of Directive 2000/60/EC and to communicate the list of competent authorities to the Commission within a prescribed period.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case T-505/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/21

         Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)
   (Case T-505/11)
   2011/C 355/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L, Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dialcos SpA (Due Carrare, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in Case R 1097/2010-2;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dialcos SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘dialdi’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case C-17/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 11 January 2005, in the case of B.F. Cadman against Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 11 January 2005, in the case of B.F. Cadman against Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission
   (Case C-17/05)
   (2005/C 69/18)
   Language of procedure: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), dated 11 January 2005, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B.F. Cadman and Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission on the following questions:

               1)

               Where the use by an employer of the criterion of length of service as a determinant of pay has a disparate impact as between relevant male and female employees, does Article 141 EC require the employer to provide special justification for recourse to that criterion? If the answer depends on the circumstances, what are those circumstances?

               2)

               Would the answer to the preceding question be different if the employer applies the criterion of length of service on an individual basis to employees so that an assessment is made as to the extent to which greater length of service justifies a greater level of pay?

               3)

               Is there any relevant distinction to be drawn between the use of the criterion of length of service in the case of part-time workers and the use of that criterion in the case of full-time workers?


title: Case C-23/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 September 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against Hellenic Republic

text:
C 71/10                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.3.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
hof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in
respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
                                                                          The period allowed for implementing the directive ended on
                  Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber
                                                                          30 June 1996. The Republic of Finland has not enacted
                                                                          national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty and
                          (Case C-1/04)                                   clarity as regards the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of
                                                                          Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
                                                                          and has not ensured that the above obligation is applied in
                         (2004/C 71/13)                                   practice.
                                                                          (1) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
                                                                              20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 365
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        of 31.12.1994, p. 10.
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 November 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 2 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber on the following question:
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko
                                                                          Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 Septem-
Does the court of the Member State which receives a request
                                                                          ber 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against
for the opening of insolvency proceedings still have jurisdiction
                                                                                Hellenic Republic
to open insolvency proceedings if the debtor moves the centre
of his or her main interests to the territory of another Member
State after filing the request but before the proceedings are                                        (Case C-23/04)
opened, or does the court of that other Member State acquire
jurisdiction?                                                                                (2004/C 71/15)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Protodikeio
                                                                          Athens (Administrative Court of First Instance, Athens) of
                                                                          30 September 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          26 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Action brought on 16 January 2004 by the Commission                       Sphakianakis AEBE against Hellenic Republic on the following
of the European Communities against the Republic of                       questions:
                             Finland
                                                                          1.    Does Article 31(2) of Protocol 4 (appended to the
                                                                                Europe agreement establishing an association between
                         (Case C-13/04)                                         the European Communities and their Member States, of
                                                                                the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other
                                                                                part) impose an obligation of mutual cooperation on the
                         (2004/C 71/14)                                         customs authorities of the Member State of importation
                                                                                to take into account decisions of the Hungarian courts
                                                                                concerning the validity of the investigations carried
                                                                                out by the authorities of the exporting State into the
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought                           correctness of the EUR.1 certificate in light of the fact
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      that:
16 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto,                     (a)   the Hungarian authorities duly informed the cus-
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                          toms authorities of the importing State concerning
                                                                                the results of the investigation initially carried
                                                                                out concerning the inaccuracy of certain export
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                          certificates, stressing none the less that the validity
                                                                                of the investigation formed the subject matter of
                                                                                proceedings pending before the Hungarian courts
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to enact                        and
      national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty
      and clarity as regards the second subparagraph of                         (b) the Hungarian authorities officially communicated
      Article 7(1) of Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging                         to the customs authorities of the importing State the
      and packaging waste (1) and has failed to ensure that the                       outcome of those proceedings, that is to say the
      above obligation is applied in practice;                                        decisions of the abovementioned courts whereby it
                                                                                was finally ascertained that a number of EUR.1
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                                 certificates were accurate;
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/11
2.   Is Article 32 of Protocol 4 mentioned above to be                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko
     construed as meaning that the customs authorities of the             Protodikeio Athinon by order of 30 September 2003 in
     importing Member State are required to take into account                  the case of SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE v Greek State
     the decisions of the courts of the exporting State over-
     turning the outcome of investigations ordered and carried
     out by the Hungarian authorities after the export oper-                                       (Case C-24/04)
     ation, regard being had to the fact that
                                                                                (2004/C 71/16)
     (a)   the authorities of the importing State were duly
           informed both of the fact that proceedings were
           pending before the Hungarian courts and of the
           outcome of the relevant procedures and                         By order of 30 September 2003, which was received at the
                                                                          registry of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 January 2004, the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon seeks
     (b) those authorities never asked for any investigation              from the Court, in the context of the dispute pending before
           to be carried out;                                             it between SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE and the Greek State, a
                                                                          preliminary ruling on the following questions:
3.   If the answer to the above questions is affirmative are the
     abovementioned provisions of Community law to be                     The questions in the present case are identical to the questions
     construed as not permitting the adoption of administrat-             in Case C-23/04.
     ive acts imposing additional duties charges and taxes
     issued by the national authorities of the importing State
     after notification by the Hungarian authorities of the
     outcome of the investigation conducted by them but
     before publication of the court decisions overturning the
     results of the investigation for the purpose of elucidating
     the due result of the prohibition of the imposition of
     duties by the association agreement between the EU and               Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the Commission
     Hungary, in light also of the fact finally that the EUR.1            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     certificates issued were correct;                                                                   Spain
4.   In that connection are the above questions affected by                                        (Case C-26/04)
     the fact that neither the Greek nor the Hungarian
     authorities sought convocation of the association com-
     mittee mentioned in Article 33 of Protocol 4 for the                                          (2004/C 71/17)
     purpose of reaching a determination in that connection,
     a situation which demonstrates that neither of the two
     authorities considered that adoption of the decisions of
     the Hungarian courts constituted a dispute between them              An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     which ought to have been brought before that committee               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Janu-
     for a determination?                                                 ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s
                                                                          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
5.   In the alternative, if the answer to the foregoing questions
     is in the negative, if therefore the Greek customs auth-
     orities did not infringe the abovementioned provisions of            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Community law by the imposition of additional duty,
     VAT and a penalty is it then possible to take the view that          —     declare that, by failing to officially designate the beaches
     the ex post determination of duties as against the importer                ‘A Videira’, ‘Niño de Corvo’ and ‘Canabal’ in Moaña, Ría
     is not permitted under Article 220(2) of the Common                        de Vigo, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, the Kingdom
     customs code on the ground of error by the customs                         of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     authorities of either the importing or exporting State,                    Article 4(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC (1) of
     regard being had in particular to the fact that the customs                8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
     authorities of the exporting State had available to then all               water;
     the factual elements in connection with the manufacture
     of the vehicles intended for export as the basis for issue
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt a pollution-reduction
     of the EUR.1 certificate, with the result that the authorities
                                                                                programme for the Ría de Vigo, the Kingdom of Spain
     of the importing State might be in a position to ascertain
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of
     ex officio the duty lawfully payable?
                                                                                Council Directive 79/923/EEC (2) of 30 October 1979 on
                                                                                the quality required of shellfish waters;
                                                                          —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.


title: Case C-290/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Comap SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Duration of the infringement — Concept of ‘continuity’ )

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Comap SA v European Commission
   (Case C-290/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Concept of ‘continuity’)
   2012/C 174/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Comap SA (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. de Guigné, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, agent)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-377/06 Comap v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F 1/38.121 — FITTINGS) — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Infringement of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal — Infringement of the principle of strict interpretation of criminal law — Notion of ‘public distancing’ — Distortion of evidence — Failure to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Comap SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-96/08: Order of the General Court of 18 June 2010 — Global Digital Disc v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/59

         Order of the General Court of 18 June 2010 — Global Digital Disc v Commission
   (Case T-96/08) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 221/93
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-463/09: Action brought on 20 November 2009 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik (form of a stirrup)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/37

         Action brought on 20 November 2009 — Herm. Sprenger v OHIM — Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik (form of a stirrup)
   (Case T-463/09)
   2010/C 11/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the decision delivered on 4 September 2009 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Appeal Proceedings R 1614/2008-4;

               —

               dismiss the application brought by the company Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH for a declaration that the applicant’s Community trade mark No 1 599 620 is invalid;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the three-dimensional Community trade mark No 1 599 620 for goods in Class 6

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Georg Kieffer Sattlerwarenfabrik GmbH

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration that the Community trade mark in issue is invalid

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Breach of Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the ground of an incorrect finding that the mark is devoid of any original distinctive character;

               —

               Breach of Article 52(1)(a) and 52(2), in conjunction with Article 7(3), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the ground that it was wrongly assumed that the disputed mark had not acquired distinctive character through use;

               —

               Breach of the first clause of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the relevant facts were not examined in the requisite manner;

               —

               Breach of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 in respect of the rights of the defence;

               —

               Breach of Article 77(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal ought to have acceded to the applicant’s alternative request for oral proceedings;

               —

               Breach of the EC Treaty in respect of the basic right to equitable proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).