title: Case T-13/04: Action brought on 15 January 2004 by Jens Peter Bonde and others against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 71/34                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.3.2004
Action brought on 15 January 2004 by Jens Peter Bonde                     Pleas in law and main arguments
and others against the European Parliament and the
                Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-13/04)                                  In support of their application the applicants submit that the
                                                                          contested regulation violates article 191 of the EC treaty in
                                                                          that the recognition of alliances of political parties as European
                                                                          political parties does not promote integration within the
                          (2004/C 71/61)                                  European Union, the formation of a European awareness or
                                                                          the expression of the political will of the Union’s citizens. They
                                                                          further allege that it violates declaration No. 11 on Article 191
                                                                          of the EC Treaty, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of
                  (Language of the case: English)                         Nice, in that it involves a prohibited transfer of powers to the
                                                                          European Community, does not provide adequate guarantees
                                                                          that the funds allocated will not be used for the activities of
                                                                          national political parties and discriminates against smaller and
                                                                          minority political groups. They also submit that the contested
                                                                          regulation violates articles 5, 189 and 202 of the EC Treaty by
                                                                          conferring implementing and decision making powers to the
                                                                          European Parliament.
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 January 2004
by Jens Peter Bonde, Bagsvaerd, (Denmark), Inger Schörling,
Gärle, (Sweden), Paul-Mari Coûteaux, Mirbeau, (France), Nigel
Paul Farage, Westerham, (United Kingdom), William Abitbol,                The applicants also submit that the contested regulation
Paris, (France), Bent Hindrup Andersen, Horsens, (Denmark),               violates a number of fundamental rights, in particular the
Graham H. Booth, Paignton, (United Kingdom), Florence                     principle against discrimination, the freedom of thought,
Kuntz, Lyon, (France), Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk, Copenhagen,                conscience and religion, and the freedom of expression, which
(Denmark), Jeffrey William Titford, Frinton-on-Sea, (United               the applicants consider are violated by the requirement
Kingdom), Per Gahrton, Täby, (Sweden), Herman Schmid,                     for unconditional endorsement of European principles as a
Copenhagen, (Denmark), Jonas Sjöstedt, Umeå, (Sweden),                    precondition for funding, as well as the freedom of association
Pernille Frahm, Bjert, (Denmark), Roger Helmer, Lutterworth,              and assembly, allegedly violated because the contested regu-
(United Kingdom), Daniel J. Hannan, Geat Bookham, (United                 lation makes provision for eligibility thresholds which exclude
Kingdom), Georges Berthu, Longré, (France), Dominique                     minority parties and independent national political parties.
F. C. Souchet, Saint-Gemme la Plaine, (France), Thierry de la
Perriere, Luc-sur-Mer, (France), Hans Kronberger, Vienna,
(Austria), Jean-Louis Bernie, Nantes, (France), Yves Butel,
Amiens, (France) and Ole Krarup, Helsingor, (Denmark),
represented by J. Dhont, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                          Further, the applicants submit that the contested regulation
                                                                          violates a series of basic principles of European Union law,
                                                                          namely: The principle of equal treatment by discriminating
                                                                          against minority and independent political parties, the prin-
                                                                          ciple of democracy, by treating members of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Parliament differently based on whether or not they are
                                                                          members of European parties, and the rule of law, in that the
                                                                          European Parliament has adopted the contested measure as
—     Declare Regulation (EC) No. 2004/2003 of the European               co-legislator and will also be the one to implement and
      Parliament and of the Council of November 4, 2003, on               administer it. The applicants also consider that principles and
      the regulations governing political parties at European             traditions common to Member States are violated in that very
      level and the rules regarding their funding, null and void,         high thresholds are set for funding and allegiance to certain
      or in second order, declare certain parts null and void,            European political ideals is required. The applicants also invoke
      or in third order only, order lawful application and                a misuse of powers by the European Parliament and the
      implementation of the European Political Parties Regu-              Council, and violations of the principles of proportionality
      lation so that Applicant’s objections are effectively               and of subsidiarity.
      resolved;
—     Order the European Parliament and the Council to pay
      the costs of (1) the proceedings and (2) the Applicant’s
      lawyer’s fees, in accordance with applicable law.


title: Case T-127/02: Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Concept-Anlagen u. Geräte nach "GMP" für Produktion u. Labor GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/61
The applicant contests the fine imposed on it, and in particular        The applicant claims that the Court should:
its amount. It submits that the Commission ascertained the
facts erroneously and assessed incorrectly the facts ascertained        —     annul Decision R 0466/2000-2 of the Second Board of
by it, especially with respect to the applicant’s merely passive              Appeal of the Office of 18 February 2002;
participation in the cartel. The Commission further assessed
incorrectly the non-implementation or delayed implemen-
                                                                        —     order the Office to pay the costs.
tation of the agreements. The same applies to the considerable
price falls and fluctuations during the period of the infringe-
ment and to the influence of manufacturing costs on prices.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
With respect to the gravity of the infringement, the applicant
submits inter alia that the Commission failed to take appropri-         Community trade mark            The figurative mark ‘ECA’ —
ately into account, besides the minor effects of the cartel, the        sought:                         application No 1106442
poor economic situation of the sector and the early termination
of the infringement. The Commission also failed to take into            Goods or services:              Goods and services in classes 9,
account the purely passive role played by the applicant in the                                          41 and 42
cartel and its crucial importance for bringing the infringement
to an early end. It thereby infringed the principle of pro-             Decision        contested       Examiner’s refusal to register
portionality and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 of the               before the Board of
Council.                                                                Appeal:
                                                                        Decision of Board of            Dismissal of appeal
The fine imposed on the applicant further discriminates against         Appeal:
it compared with much more active members of the cartel.
                                                                        Pleas in law:                   —     Incorrect application of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation
The applicant submits, moreover, that the Commission                                                          (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Article
infringed the principle of careful and impartial investigation of                                             6 of the Paris Convention (2)
the aspects of relevance for the assessment of the fine, since it                                             because the figurative mark
failed to follow up numerous indications made by the appli-                                                   is not identical to the Euro-
cant. Finally, the decision infringes the requirement to state                                                pean emblem.
reasons under Article 253 EC.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 december 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Concept-Anlagen u.
Geräte nach ‘GMP’ für Produktion u. Labor GmbH against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)                             Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papeteries Mougeot
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-127/02)
                                                                                (Case T-128/02)
                        (2002/C 144/118)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/119)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Papeteries
18 April 2002 by Concept-Anlagen u. Geräte nach ‘GMP’ für               Mougeot, established in Laval-sur-Vologne France, represented
Produktion u. Labor GmbH, Heidelberg (Germany), represent-              by Guy Barsi, Julien Baumgartner and Jean-Paul Hordies,
ed by G.J. Hodapp, lawyer.                                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


               10.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/9

         Action brought on 13 September 2011 by Asker Brygge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-12/11)
   2011/C 325/05
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 September 2011 by Asker Brygge AS, represented by Thomas Nordby, attorney-at-law and Espen Bakken, attorney-at-law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare void Articles 1 and 2 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 232/11/COL;

               2.

               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               In its Decision No 232/11/COL of 13 July 2011 on the notification of the sale of land at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17, in the municipality of Asker, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the sale constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and that it shall be subject to recovery.

               —

               The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested Decision.

               —

               The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           has misapplied Article 61(1) of the in its assessment of whether Asker Brygge received economic advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA,

                           —

                           has erred in its assessment of the relevant time for the basis for calculation of whether State aid was granted within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA, and

                           —

                           has not taken duly into account the fact that the sale is based on an option agreement.


title: Case T-465/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2011 — Czech Republic v Commission (PHARE — ‘Revolving funds’ obtained by the Czech Republic — Reimbursement of amounts paid — Commission decision to offset — Legal basis — Distinct legal orders — Concept of being certain and of a fixed amount — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2011 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-465/08) (1)

   (PHARE - ‘Revolving funds’ obtained by the Czech Republic - Reimbursement of amounts paid - Commission decision to offset - Legal basis - Distinct legal orders - Concept of being certain and of a fixed amount - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 160/19
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, F. Dintilhac and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 August 2008 on offsetting the amounts owed by the Czech Republic under the ‘revolving funds’ of the PHARE programme.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-292/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) (Greece) lodged on 13 June 2014  — The Greek State v Stefanos Stroumboulis and Others

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) (Greece) lodged on 13 June 2014 — The Greek State v Stefanos Stroumboulis and Others
   (Case C-292/14)
   2014/C 282/30
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Greek State

      Defendants: Stefanos Stroumpoulis, Nicolaos Koumpanos, Panagiotis Renieris, Charalampos Renieris, Ioannis Zacharias, Dimitrios Lazarou and Apostolos Chatzisotiriou

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are the provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that seamen of a Member State who provided maritime labour on a vessel flying the flag of a country which is not a member of the European Union, as regards their outstanding claims against the ship-owning company — which had its registered office in the territory of the non-member country though its real seat was in the Member State concerned, and which was declared insolvent by a court of that Member State according to the law of that Member State, for the precise reason that that was where its real seat was — were subject to the protective provisions of the above Directive, in view of the purpose of the Directive and irrespective of the fact that the relevant employment contracts were governed by the law of the non-member country and that the Member State is unable to claim a contribution from the ship-owning company, which is not subject to the domestic legal order, towards the financing of the guarantee institution?

               2)

               Are the provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that ‘equivalent protection’ includes payment, pursuant to Article 29 of Law 1220/1981, by the Seamen’s Insurance Fund (NAT) of wages for up to three months, according to the rate of basic pay and benefits set out in the relevant collective bargaining agreements for Greek seamen employed as such on board vessels flying the Greek flag or foreign vessels which have entered into an agreement with NAT, in the circumstances referred to in that article, i.e. only if they are abandoned in a foreign country?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 35).


5.5.2001              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 134/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-458/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-106/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/25)                                                    (2001/C 134/27)
By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of         By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of, the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-458/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-106/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-446/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/26)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-342/00 (1)
By order of 15 February 2001 the President of the Court of                                (2001/C 134/28)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-446/99: Commission of the              By order of 6 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                   the register of Case C-342/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case C-493/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC — Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/20

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-493/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 141/33
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Dimitriou and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 19 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes)
   (2004/C 300/22)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v the Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalias) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 September 2002 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: L. Hewlett, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement completely Article 2(a) and (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation.

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case C-310/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 20 June 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 20 June 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-310/11)
   2011/C 282/03
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grattan plc

      Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Question referred

   In relation to the period before 1 January 1978, does a taxable person have a directly effective right under Article 8(a) of the Second Council Directive of 11 April 1967 (67/228/EEC (1)), and/or the principles of fiscal neutrality and of equal treatment, to treat the basis of assessment of a supply of goods as retrospectively reduced where, after the time of that supply of goods, the recipient of the supply received a credit from the supplier which the recipient then elected either to take as a payment of money, or as a credit against amounts owed to the supplier in respect of supplies of goods to the recipient that had already taken place?

      (1)  Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes — Structure and procedures for application of the common system of value added tax
   OJ 71, p. 1303


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-120/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf in Medion AG v Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Use of the trade mark by a third party — Composite sign including the name of another party followed by the trade mark)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-120/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf in Medion AG v Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Use of the trade mark by a third party - Composite sign including the name of another party followed by the trade mark)
   (2005/C 296/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-120/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), made by decision of 17 February 2004, received at the Court on 5 March 2004, in the proceedings between Medion AG and Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that where the goods or services are identical there may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public where the contested sign is composed by juxtaposing the company name of another party and a registered mark which has normal distinctiveness and which, without alone determining the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign, still has an independent distinctive role therein.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-522/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2016 — A v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 7 October 2016 — A v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-522/16)
   (2017/C 086/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: A

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 62 of the CCC [Community Customs Code], (1) read in conjunction with Articles 205, 212, 216, 217 and 218 of the Regulation implementing the CCC (2) as well as the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1484/95, (4) be interpreted as meaning that the information referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of the CCC, on the basis of which a customs declaration is drawn up, should include the documents referred to in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 which must be submitted to the customs authorities?

               2.

               Should the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that the persons who should be held liable must include the natural person who has not personally actually performed the act described in that paragraph (‘provided the information required to draw up the declaration’) and who can also not be held liable in an official capacity for performing that act, but who was closely and consciously involved in devising and then setting up a structure of companies and patterns of trade in the context of which (others) subsequently ‘provided the information required to draw up the declaration’?

               3.

               Should the condition ‘who knew, or who ought reasonably to have known that the information required to draw up the declaration was false’ in the second subparagraph of Article 201(3) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that legal persons and natural persons, who are experienced traders, cannot be held liable for additional duties which are due as a result of an abuse of law, if they only proceeded to set up a transaction structure intended to avoid the payment of additional duties after reputable specialists in the field of customs law had confirmed that such a structure was legally and fiscally acceptable?

               4.

               Should Article 221(4) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that the three-year period will not be extended in a situation where it is established, after the expiry of the period referred to in the first sentence of Article 221(3) of the CCC, that import duties which became due under Article 201 of the CCC as a result of a customs declaration for release for free circulation of goods, were not levied earlier as a result of the submission of false or incomplete information in the declaration?

               5.

               Should Article 221(3) and Article 221(4) of the CCC be interpreted as meaning that, once a communication about duties due has been made to a customs debtor in relation to an import declaration, against which that customs debtor has lodged an appeal within the meaning of Article 243 of the CCC, the customs authorities can, in respect of the same customs declaration, in a supplementary action to the legal challenge to that communication, make an additional assessment with regard to import duties legally due, while ignoring the provisions of Article 221(4) of the CCC?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77).

      (4)  Commission Regulation of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing additional import duties in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47).


title: Case T-422/15 and 423/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — U-R LAB v EUIPO (European Union trade mark — Application for European Union figurative and word marks THE DINING EXPERIENCE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — U-R LAB v EUIPO
   (Case T-422/15 and 423/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for European Union figurative and word marks THE DINING EXPERIENCE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 243/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: U-R LAB (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J.Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2015 (Cases R 2541/2014 4 and R 2542/2014 4) concerning applications for registration of, first, the figurative sign and, secondly, the word sign THE DINING EXPERIENCE as European Union trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 for the purposes of the present judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders U-R LAB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


C 146/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                    21.6.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-192/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/60)                                                       (2003/C 146/63)
By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-192/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                            Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-149/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-343/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/61)                                                       (2003/C 146/64)
By order of 6 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-149/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-343/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.                             Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-155/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-363/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/62)                                                       (2003/C 146/65)
By order of 10 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 3 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-155/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-363/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                    Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-680/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 December 2011 — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 22 December 2011 — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-680/11)
   2012/C 65/15
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anita Chieza

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Question referred

               1.

               Is the differential treatment on the basis of gender under the incapacity benefit scheme necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable age so that it falls within the scope of the derogation under Article 7(l)(a) of Directive 79/7 (1) in circumstances where a claimant:

                           (a)

                           is a woman;

                           (b)

                           falls ill before reaching pensionable age (for a woman, 60);

                           (c)

                           receives statutory sick pay (SSP) from her employer for 28 weeks, taking her past pensionable age;

                           (d)

                           after reaching pensionable age, makes a claim for short-term incapacity benefit;

                           (e)

                           meets the contributions requirements for entitlement to short-term incapacity benefit;

                           (f)

                           is denied short-term incapacity benefit because as a matter of law her ‘period of incapacity for work’ began after she reached pensionable age (because legislation provides that a period of entitlement to SSP does not count as a period of incapacity for work),

         but where a male claimant who falls ill shortly before the age of 60, receives SSP from his employer for 28 weeks, and makes a claim for short-term incapacity benefit at the age of 60, will in principle qualify for short-term incapacity benefit, as his period of incapacity for work began before he attained pensionable age, albeit after reaching 60?

      (1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security
   OJ L 6, p. 24


title: Case T-28/04: Actionbrought on 22 January 2004 by Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisationin the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/67

         Action brought on 22 January 2004 by Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-28/04)
   (2004/C 106/137)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 2004 by Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG, Cologne (Germany), represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer. Mr Mirco Cara, Trezzano Sul Naviglio, Milan (Italy), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2003 (Case R 10/2003-1);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Mr Mirco Cara

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘TOSKA LEATHER’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25 (including books, bags and clothing for men, women and children in general) – Application No. 1 079 888

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               The German word mark ‘TOSCA’ for perfumery (including ‘Parfum’, ‘Eau de Toilette’ and ‘Eau de Parfum Pour Femmes’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld in respect of goods in Class 25. Opposition refused as to the remainder.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Applicant's appeal rejected.

               Pleas in law:

                           The opposition on the basis of the mark cited (a well-known mark) was well founded under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.  (1)

                           likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs.

                           similarity of the conflicting goods.

                           the mark cited in opposition is a mark which has a reputation within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

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


title: Case T-89/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/19

         Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)
   (Case T-89/12)
   2012/C 126/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.B. Devaureix)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ajuntament de Roses, Roses (Girona), Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;

               —

               declare the proposed evidence admissible;

               —

               accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 7 440 407‘R’ for the goods in Class 25 in respect of which registration was originally sought, and those in Class 35 in respect of which registration has been refused;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘R’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41 (application No 7440407).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ajuntament de Roses.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark No 2593913 for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25 and 35.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld for some of the goods and services against which it was brought, in Classes 25 and 35, and application rejected in respect of those goods.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: action dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs.


title: Case C-332/06 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2006 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/30

         Appeal brought on 1 August 2006 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-332/06 P)
   (2006/C 224/57)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, State Legal Adviser, and I. Khalkias, Member of the State Legal Service)

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

               —

               Hold the appeal admissible;

               —

               Set aside or alter the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               Grant the appeal, in accordance with the form of order sought;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

         1st ground of appeal
      : The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and subparagraph (a) of the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 as amended by Article 1(3) of Regulation No 2245/99, because:

               (a)

               the Commission's communication did not satisfy the requirements of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 and therefore could not constitute the written communication for the purposes of that article or the starting point for determining the 24-month period prescribed by Regulations Nos 729/70 and 1258/1999. Thus, on the basis of the foregoing provisions, the Commission lacked temporal competence to impose financial corrections because it did not comply with the procedure, laid down in the regulations, which requires bilateral discussion including with regard to the amount of the impending correction, the assessment of which must be included in the letter under Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 which sets off the 24-month period. In any event the Commission rejected expenditure referable to a time preceding the 24-month period;

               (b)

               the Court of First Instance made the application of Regulation No 2245/1999 retroactive in accepting that it covers expenditure not only of the financial year 2000 but also of earlier financial years.

         2nd ground of appeal
      : The Court of First Instance misinterpreted and applied incorrectly the principles of proportionality (force majeure) and of the protection of legitimate expectations with regard to the delay in bringing rice into intervention storage because:

               (a)

               the exceeding by nine days of the time-limit for bringing the entire quantity of rice into storage, which was due to a strike without notice by drivers of lorries for public use, amounts to a classic case of force majeure, responsibility for which cannot be attributed to Greece, whose competent authorities did everything possible to bring in the entire quantity of rice despite the unnotified strike;

               (b)

               the fact that the Commission was informed immediately and timeously, before the time-limit expired, that the bringing of rice into storage was delayed because of the strike and the fact that Commission did not reply immediately created justified expectations that the Commission had no objection to the delay of a few days.


title: Case C-490/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/21

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-490/09)
   2010/C 37/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining in force, in their current wording, Paragraph 24 of the Social Security Code which precludes the reimbursement of the costs of medical analyses carried out in another Member State by providing for those analyses to be reimbursed only by a paying third party, and Article 12 of the statutes of the Union des Caisses de Maladie (Union of Sickness funds) which subjects the reimbursement of medical analyses carried out in another Member State to full compliance with the dispensing conditions provided for by Luxembourg national conventions, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has to fulfil its obligations under Article [49] EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the European Commission claims that by maintaining in force the laws which preclude the reimbursement of medical analyses and medical laboratory tests carried out in other Member States, or which subject such reimbursement to full compliance with the dispensing conditions provided for by Luxembourg legislation, the defendant infringed the principle of the freedom to provide services set out in Article 49 EC.
   The applicant observes, by way of example, that the national authorities reimburse the costs of analysis and testing only where they are carried out within a separate laboratory which fully complies with the provisions of Luxembourg law. However, in certain Member States, such analyses are not carried out in a laboratory, but by the doctors themselves.
   According to the Commission, the restrictions at issue cannot be justified by an overriding requirement in the general interest and neither do they represent an essential and proportionate measure to achieve the aim of the protection of public health.


title: Case C-118/14: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Peggy Kieck v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Peggy Kieck v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-118/14) (1)

   2014/C 409/45
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case T-165/99: Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and Seven Q Seven Inc. against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 281/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.10.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           when fitted by the second applicant (7Q7) with new engines
                                                                          having a by-pass ratio of less than three may not be placed on
The contested decision is the same as that in issue in Case               EU registers as from 4th May 2000 and even if registered
T-107/99 Garcia Retortillo (1). The pleas in law and main                 outside the EU may not be operated to and from EU airports
arguments are the same as those advanced in that case.                    as from 1st April 2002. None of these re-engined 707s would
                                                                          be ready for registration in the EU before 4th May 2000. This
                                                                          is despite the fact that these re-engined 707s would meet noise
The applicant pleads, in support of his application, infringe-            pollution emission standards applicable to other aeroplanes
ment of Article 7 of Protocol No 2 annexed to the Treaty of               whose continued operation is permitted under the contested
Amsterdam, of Articles 27 and 39 of the Staff Regulations and             regulation.
of the principle of non-discrimination, together, in the present
case, with an error of law committed by the Council in the
formulation of the decision of 1 May 1999. That error consists,
in particular, in the absence of any objective justification for          The applicants contend in this regard that the by-pass criterion
using the date of 2 October 1997 as a criterion for taking into           does not determine the noise or pollution emissions of any
consideration the names of persons working in the Schengen                re-engined aeroplane. The use of a by-pass ratio criterion does
Secretariat for the purposes of their integration into the said           not relate to any justifiable technical objective and should be
General Secretariat, and also in the manner in which the                  considered as arbitrary. Moreover, the regulation imposes no
applicant’s contract for an indefinite period was brought to an           noise standard and would prejudice Omega’s aeroplanes even
end.                                                                      if they were totally silent. They submit that Omega’s aeroplanes
                                                                          as re-engined by 7Q7 will be less, or at least no more, noisy
                                                                          than many aeroplanes permitted to continue in operation in
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                            the EU under the contested regulation, and that they will also
                                                                          produce less pollution emissions than other aircraft that will
                                                                          be allowed to operate for many years in the EU.
                                                                          On this basis, the applicants state that the contested regulation:
Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and
Seven Q Seven Inc. against the Council of the European                    — reduces immediately the value of Omega’s fleet of 7Q7 by
                               Union                                           some 30 % at least;
                          (Case T-165/99)                                 — writes off both applicants’ substantial investment in the
                                                                               7Q7 test and recertification programme;
                         (1999/C 281/42)
                                                                          — prevents the implementation of the applicants’ existing
                                                                               re-engining programme for five aircraft which has been
                   (Language of the case: English)                             under way since 1992, and their planned re-engining of
                                                                               other aircraft, with a consequential loss of increased
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        revenue for engined aircraft with the extended life of those
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     aircraft; and
Communities on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and Seven
Q Seven Inc., represented by David Vaughan QC, Aidan                      — causes the applicants loss and damage, including costs
Robertson and Michael Offer, with an address for service in                    incurred in attempting to ensure that the contested regu-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz & Kremer, 6 rue Heine.                     lation did not exclude aircraft re-engined with engines
                                                                               having a by-pass ratio of less than three.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 in so far as it
    applies to re-engined aircraft having a by-pass ratio of less         The applicants contend that the contested regulation infringes
    than three;                                                           the obligation under Article 235 of the Treaty to state the
                                                                          reasons for measures, the general principles of non-
— award damages pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) of the                discrimination, proportionality and protection of the legit-
    EC Treaty;                                                            imate expectations, as well as the General Agreement of Tariffs
                                                                          and Trade, the Agreement of Technical Barriers to Trade and
— order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.                         the Chicago Convention.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the              (1) OJ 1999 L 115 of 4 May 1999, p. 1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1), in so far as it
prohibits aircraft which have been re-engined with engines
having a by-pass ratio of less than three but allowing them if
the by-pass ratio is three or more. As a result of that regulation,
Boeing 707 aeroplanes owned by the first applicant (Omega)


title: Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia Nacional by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the case of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A. against INSALUD (now INGESA)

text:
2.8.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/21
Pleas in law and new arguments                                          vehicle registered abroad. They require payment of the car tax
                                                                        chargeable in Finland before the vehicle may be used. Car tax
In general terms, for the provisions of an international treaty         is to be levied on vehicles which are used in traffic in Finland,
to be able to continue to have effect after its natural expiry a        even to a small extent, unless a specific exception is laid down
decision in that behalf must be taken in concertation by the            by law.
signatory States and only by them.
No joint position was adopted by the signatory States of the            Under the Finnish provisions, car tax is to be paid on a vehicle
ECSC Treaty, prior to the expiry thereof, with a view to                before it is used on Finnish territory. If the vehicle is never-
extending its validity in its entirety and to providing for a           theless used without paying tax in cases in which tax should
general transitional regime to ensure the continuance in effect         have been regarded as paid, the authorities levy tax on the
of all its provisions. Instead the signatory States allowed the         vehicle.
ECSC Treaty to be extinguished, merely regulating the transfer
of ECSC provisions to the EC regime in regard to certain
sectors. In particular, no joint provision was made in regard           The Finnish legislation, contrary to Article 39 EC, prevents the
to a transitional regime in competition matters under the ECSC          realisation of freedom of movement of workers, because
Treaty. In the case of investigations under way at the time of          employees living in Finland cannot use a car provided by their
expiry of the ECSC Treaty such expiry could not be claimed to           employer and registered in another Member State for their
be ‘non-retroactive’ since that would entail the continuance in         work in Finland, if tax is not paid on the car in Finland. As
effect of its provisions, no right, obligation or legal situation       a result of the Finnish legislation, employees resident in Finland
arising during the currency of the Treaty itself.                       cannot accept an offer of work from a neighbouring State of
                                                                        the European Union where the use in both countries of a car
From the applicant's point of view, absorption of the ECSC              provided by the employer is part of the work.
rules within the EC rules may occur only by way of an
instrument manifesting the common will in that regard of the
signatory states.                                                       Companies operating in another Member State cannot engage
                                                                        employees living in Finland because they cannot use a car
                                                                        registered in another country in Finland if Finnish tax has not
                                                                        been paid on the car. The practice discriminates in particular
                                                                        against cross-frontier workers living in Finland, who cannot
                                                                        use a car provided by the employer for daily work journeys
                                                                        between the home and the workplace. The use of a car
                                                                        provided by the employer is often a regular part of the
Action brought on 28 May 2003 by the Commission of                      remuneration. A Member State breaches the duty of coopera-
the European Communities against the Republic of                        tion under Article 10 EC if the national measures of the
                             Finland                                    Member State prevent freedom of movement in such a way
                                                                        that workers living in another Member State cannot pursue
                         (Case C-232/03)                                their occupation in the other Member State.
                         (2003/C 184/37)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Nacional by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
                                                                        case of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A.
1.    Declare that, by preventing cross-frontier workers from                          against INSALUD (now INGESA)
      benefiting from certain benefits provided to them by their
      employers on the sole ground that the workers in ques-
      tion live in the Republic of Finland, into which the                                       (Case C-234/03)
      vehicles owned by their employers have been imported,
      the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Articles 10 EC and 39 EC;                                                            (2003/C 184/38)
2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (National High Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 2 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Provisions of Finnish legislation limit the possibility for a           of Contse S.A., Vivisol SRL and Oxigen Salud S.A. against
person permanently resident in Finland to use in Finland a              INSALUD (now INGESA) on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/22               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         2.8.2003
Is it contrary to Articles 12, 43 et seq. and 49 et seq. of the EC       Pleas in law and main arguments
Treaty, and Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts, to include in the general             The Commission submits that the CFI'S ruling contains
specifications and special administrative clauses and technical          numerous contradictions and inconsistencies, not to say distor-
specifications governing public competitions relating to home            tions and that, accordingly, the contested judgment would
respiratory treatments and other assisted breathing techniques:          render the division of offenders into groups, which is a key
                                                                         element of the Guidelines, unworkable. The Commission main-
                                                                         tains that it followed an approach which is both entirely
1)    the requirement that, in order to qualify to tender, under-        reasonable and wholly consonant with the principle of non-
      takings must already have offices open to the public in            discrimination.
      the province or capital of the province in which the
      service is to be provided;
                                                                         In the Commission's submission, the CFI has erred in finding
2)    award criteria which favour:                                       that the Decision contained inadequate reasoning and has, in
                                                                         any event, exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction.
      a)    tenders from undertakings established within a
            1 000 Km radius of the capital in which the service          According to the Commission the contested ruling would
            is to be provided;                                           severely fetter the Commission's discretion when setting fines,
                                                                         and would be virtually tantamount to imposing on the
      b)    undertakings which already have offices open to the          Commission a duty to apply a mathematical or ‘scientifically’
            public in certain towns in that province; or                 verifiable formula. This would seriously undermine the
                                                                         Commission's discretion, and thus its power and duty to
      c)    undertakings which have been providing the service           pursue infringements of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.
            previously?
                                                                         Finally the Commission contests the CFI's finding that the
(1) OJ L 209 of 18.06.1992, p. 1.                                        imposition of fines was time-barred and maintains that such
                                                                         finding is unsustained by any reasoning in the judgment.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 124, 24.05.2003, p. 18.
Appeal brought on 2 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
19 March 2003 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in case T-213/
00 (1) between CMA CGM and thirteen other liner ship-
ping companies and the Commission of the European
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                            Communities
                                                                         d'Instance de Roubaix by judgment of that court of
                                                                         15 May 2003 in the case of Banque Sofinco SA against
                        (Case C-236/03 P)                                                   Daniel and Carole Djemoui
                          (2003/C 184/39)
                                                                                (Case C-237/03)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March 2003                                         (2003/C 184/40)
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-213/00 between CMA CGM
and thirteen other liner shipping companies and the Commis-
sion of the European Communities was brought before the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 June 2003              European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d'instance
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented               (District Court), Roubaix of 15 May 2003 received at the
by P. Oliver, acting as agent, with an address for service in            Court Registry on 4 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
Luxembourg.                                                              the case of Banque Sofinco SA against Daniel and Carole
                                                                         Djemoui on the following questions:
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Must Council Directives 87/102/EC (1) of 22 December
—     annul point 1 of the judgment of the Court of First                      1986 and 90/88/EC (2) of 22 February 1990 be inter-
      Instance of 19 March 2003 in Case T-213/00 (CMA                          preted as requiring the national court to favour the
      CGM v. Commission);                                                      interpretation of national law obliging consumer credit
                                                                               institutions to inform the borrower/consumer in writing
—     reject the Respondents' Application in its entirety;                     of the current annual percentage rate of charge, before
                                                                               each renewal of a credit agreement renewable in instal-
—     order the Respondents to pay the Commission's costs.                     ments in which the interest is stipulated to be variable?


title: Case C-140/06: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 21 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/28

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 21 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-140/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/49)

      Language of the case: Czech

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-470/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem (Netherlands)) — N v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Oost/kantoor Almelo (Freedom of movement for persons — Article 18 EC — Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Direct taxation — Taxation of notional increases in value of substantial shareholdings where tax residence transferred to another Member State)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem (Netherlands)) — N v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Oost/kantoor Almelo
   (Case C-470/04) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Article 18 EC - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Direct taxation - Taxation of notional increases in value of substantial shareholdings where tax residence transferred to another Member State)
   (2006/C 261/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Arnhem (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: N

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Oost/kantoor Almelo
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Free movement of persons — Freedom of establishment — Tax charge resulting from the transfer of residence to another Member State — Pursuit of an economic activity in the latter state — Income tax on the basis of deemed profit from the sale of a substantial shareholding in a company — Provision of a guarantee in order to obtain deferment of payment — Articles 18 EC and 43 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               A Community national, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who has been living in one Member State since the transfer of his residence and who holds all the shares of companies established in another Member State, may rely on Article 43 EC.

               2.

               Article 43 EC must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing a system for taxing increases in value in the case of a taxpayer's transferring his residence outside that Member State, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the granting of deferment of the payment of that tax conditional on the provision of guarantees and does not take full account of reductions in value capable of arising after the transfer of residence by the person concerned and which were not taken into account by the host Member State.

               3.

               An obstacle arising from a requirement, in breach of Community law, that a guarantee be constituted cannot be raised with retroactive effect merely by releasing that guarantee. The form of the document on the basis of which the guarantee was released is immaterial to that assessment. Where a Member State makes provision for the payment of interest on arrears where a guarantee demanded in breach of national law is released, such interest is also due in the case of an infringement of Community law. Moreover, it is for the national court to assess, in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Court of Justice and in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, whether the Member State is liable on account of the damage caused by the obligation to constitute such a guarantee.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


title: Case T-230/12: Action brought on 23 May 2012 — Axa Belgium v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/21

         Action brought on 23 May 2012 — Axa Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-230/12)
   2012/C 243/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Axa Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Cleenewerck de Crayencour, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul debit notes No 7141101047 in the amount of EUR 1 590,62 dated 23 March 2012 and No 7141101053 in the amount of EUR 10 160,88 dated 23 March 2012;

               —

               annul the payment by means of offsetting outstanding claims against debts which the Commission effected by letter of 26 March 2012 addressed to S.A. Axa Belgium (a letter bearing the reference D(2012) C4 — B.2 — 000212 and signed by Mr B. of DG Budget);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and an error of law, inasmuch as the Commission issued debit notes in respect of unfounded claims and effected recovery by offsetting claims that are not certain, of a fixed amount and due. The applicant submits that the Commission is demanding sums which exceed those granted under the legal rules currently in force in connection with the subrogation of the Commission to the rights of its officials who are the victims of accidents caused by persons who are insured in respect of statutory liability by the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of sound administration and of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the Commission offset notwithstanding a contractual undertaking not to do so and notwithstanding the fact that, for many years, the Commission has always agreed to settle cases by negotiation without having recourse to offsetting and waiting for decisions to be given by the Belgian courts.


title: Case T-69/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (Truvo)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/26

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (Truvo)
   (Case T-69/11)
   2011/C 89/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O.F.A.W. van Haperen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)

      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 21 October 2010 in case R 956/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘Truvo’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6288484

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application for all of class 38

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as well as it lacks proper motivation, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its comparison of the services, (ii) in its comparison of the signs, (iii) in its assessment of the relevant public, and (iv) in its assessment of likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-29/02: Action brought on 1 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 68/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.3.2002
Action brought on 1 February 2002 by the Commission                        to comply with Council Directive 98/83/EC (1) of 3 Nov-
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                         ember 1998 on the quality of water intended for human
                             Spain                                         consumption or, in any event, by failing to have informed
                                                                           the Commission of any such laws, regulations or adminis-
                         (Case C-29/02)                                    trative provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
                                                                           fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                         (2002/C 68/19)
                                                                     —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 Febru-
ary 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,              Pleas in law and main arguments
represented by G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of L. Escobar,       Under Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 98/83/EC, the Kingdom
Wagner Centre C 254.                                                 of Spain should have brought into force the measures necessary
                                                                     to comply with the Directive by no later than 25 December
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          2000 and should have informed the Commission thereof.
—    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions needed in order       (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.


title: Case C-221/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Belgacom NV v Interkommunale voor Teledistributie van het Gewest Antwerpen (Integan), Inter-Media, West-Vlaamse Energie- en Teledistributiemaatschappij (WVEM), Provinciale Brabantse Energiemaatschappij CVBA (PBE) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Obligation of transparency — Scope — Agreement concluded by public entities of one Member State and an undertaking of that Member State — Transfer, by those entities, of their television provision activities and, for a fixed period, the exclusive right to use their cable networks, to an undertaking in that Member State — Possibility for an economic operator of that same State to rely on Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU before the courts of that Member State — No invitation to tender — Justification — Existence of an earlier agreement — Transaction intended to put an end to litigation concerning the interpretation of that agreement — Risk of depreciation of the transferred activity)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/9

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België — Belgium) — Belgacom NV v Interkommunale voor Teledistributie van het Gewest Antwerpen (Integan), Inter-Media, West-Vlaamse Energie- en Teledistributiemaatschappij (WVEM), Provinciale Brabantse Energiemaatschappij CVBA (PBE)
   (Case C-221/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency - Scope - Agreement concluded by public entities of one Member State and an undertaking of that Member State - Transfer, by those entities, of their television provision activities and, for a fixed period, the exclusive right to use their cable networks, to an undertaking in that Member State - Possibility for an economic operator of that same State to rely on Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU before the courts of that Member State - No invitation to tender - Justification - Existence of an earlier agreement - Transaction intended to put an end to litigation concerning the interpretation of that agreement - Risk of depreciation of the transferred activity)
   2014/C 9/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgacom NV

      Defendants: Interkommunale voor Teledistributie van het Gewest Antwerpen (Integan), Inter-Media, West-Vlaamse Energie- en Teledistributiemaatschappij (WVEM), Provinciale Brabantse Energiemaatschappij CVBA (PBE)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State van België — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Scope — Principle of transparency — Agreement concluded between a public body and an undertaking of the same Member State concerning the assignment of certain rights from the public body to the undertaking, without any advertising or invitation to other undertakings to submit bids

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator in a Member State may, before the courts of that Member State, allege an infringement of the obligation of transparency under those articles occurring at the time of conclusion of an agreement whereby one or more public entities of that Member State have either granted to an economic operator of that same Member State a licence for services of certain cross-border interest or granted an economic operator the exclusive right to engage in an economic activity of cross-border interest.

               2.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the wish not to disregard certain rights which public entities have granted to an economic operator under a pre-existing agreement concerning the use of cable networks belonging to them cannot justify an extended scope being given to that agreement which is contrary to European Union law in the form of a direct grant of a service concession or an exclusive right to engage in an activity of certain cross-border interest, including when it is for the purpose of putting an end to a dispute which has arisen between the parties concerned, for reasons entirely outside their control, as to the scope of that agreement;

                           —

                           grounds of an economic nature, such as the wish to avoid the depreciation of an economic activity, are not overriding reasons in the public interest liable to justify the direct grant of a licence for services relating to that activity or of an exclusive right to engage in that activity of certain cross-border interest, by way of derogation from the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in those articles.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-265/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan): Annie Pansard and Others (Origin of fishery products — Article 28 EC — National law periodically prohibiting the landing of certain fishery products — Competence of the Member States)

text:
C 44/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to       Community fishery law precludes a national law such as that in issue
      ensure the correct transposition of Articles 11 and 22(1) of           in the main proceedings, which prohibits, during a certain period, the
      Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on                    landing, on a part of the coastline of the Member State concerned, of
      the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative              scallops fished in the territorial waters of another Member State.
      provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of
      animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      under that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                             in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services —
                        of 16 January 2003                                   Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC —
                                                                             Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeologi-
                                                                             cal digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments
in Case C-265/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    — Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State
the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan): Annie Pansard                                                   authorities)
                             and Others (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/15)
(Origin of fishery products — Article 28 EC — National
law periodically prohibiting the landing of certain fishery
         products — Competence of the Member States)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2003/C 44/14)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-388/01, Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Agents: M. Patakia and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent:
                                                                             U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a declaration
                                                                             that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates for admis-
                                                                             sion to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs,
                                                                             parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by
In Case C-265/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                   local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of Italian
EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan, France, for                nationals and persons resident within the territory of those
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Annie               authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are aged
Pansard and Others, en présence du Comité Region pêches                      over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages
maritimes, a party to the main proceedings — on the                          tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                     residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, the
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 28 EC — the Court of Justice               Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of                  composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
the Chamber, and C. Gulmann, F. Macken (Rapporteur),                         R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
N. Colneric, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate               (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which
judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it ruled that:                         it:


title: Case C-287/08: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano (Italy)) — Crocefissa Savia, Monica Maria Porcu, Ignazia Randazzo, Daniela Genovese, Mariangela Campanella v Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, Direzione Didattica II Circolo — Limbiate, Úfficio Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Direzione Didattica III Circolo — Rozzano, Direzione Didattica IV Circolo — Rho, Istituto Comprensivo — Castano Primo, Istituto Comprensivo A. Manzoni — Rescaldina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No link with Community law — Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano (Italy)) — Crocefissa Savia, Monica Maria Porcu, Ignazia Randazzo, Daniela Genovese, Mariangela Campanella v Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, Direzione Didattica II Circolo — Limbiate, Úfficio Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Direzione Didattica III Circolo — Rozzano, Direzione Didattica IV Circolo — Rho, Istituto Comprensivo — Castano Primo, Istituto Comprensivo A. Manzoni — Rescaldina
   (Case C-287/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No link with Community law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)
   (2009/C 69/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale ordinario di Milano
   Parties

      Applicants: Crocefissa Savia, Monica Maria Porcu, Ignazia Randazzo, Daniela Genovese, Mariangela Campanella

      Defendants: Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, Direzione Didattica II Circolo — Limbiate, Úfficio Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Direzione Didattica III Circolo — Rozzano, Direzione Didattica IV Circolo — Rho, Istituto Comprensivo — Castano Primo, Istituto Comprensivo A. Manzoni — Rescaldina
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Milano — Interpretation of Article 6(2) EU and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Right to a fair trial — National legislation with retroactive effect which introduces changes in salary conditions under the contract of employment
   Operative part of the order
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Tribunale ordinario di Milano by decision of 16 June 2008.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.


title: Case T-703/14 R: Order of the Judge hearing the Application for Interim Measures of 27 October 2014  — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission (Interim proceedings — Grant agreements — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Debit note addressed to a contracting party — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Case not suitable for the adoption of interim relief)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/35

         Order of the Judge hearing the Application for Interim Measures of 27 October 2014 — Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net v Commission
   (Case T-703/14 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - Grant agreements - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Debit note addressed to a contracting party - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Case not suitable for the adoption of interim relief))
   (2015/C 026/45)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Diktyo Amyntikon Viomichanion Net AEVE (Kaisariani, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the suspension of operation of a debit note addressed to the applicant within the framework of a grant agreement and of any other relevant act.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for interim measures;

               2.

               Reserves the costs.