title: Case C-224/07: Action brought on 4 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/14

         Action brought on 4 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-224/07)
   (2007/C 155/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrel and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that directive;
               or in the alternative:
               declare that, by failing to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2004/49/EC expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 220, p. 16.


title: Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Martin Hagleitner against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-94/96)

text:
24 . 8 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 247/ 17
Alves Vieira ) — application for suspension of operation of              the light of candidates' qualifications, the examiners
the decision of the Commission of the European                           appointed were underqualified and that the objectivity of
Communities of 31 May 1996 reassigning the applicant to                  the competition had not been respected .
the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities in Luxembourg — the President of the Court                   According to the applicant, there had never been any
of First Instance made an order on 25 July 1996 , the                    objective review of the marking of his written test papers ( c )
operative part of which is as follows :                                  and ( d ) and the Commission had improperly accepted the
                                                                         marking of the Austrian examiners .
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
2.   the costs are reserved.
                                                                         In any event, the applicant submits, there was a breach of
                                                                         Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations to the
                                                                         detriment of all test participants , since the selection board
                                                                         for an 'accession competition ' had had recourse to national
                                                                         examiners serving, in fact, in a determinant capacity .
Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Martin Hagleitner                      On the basis of this procedural breach , the interests of all
    against Commission of the European Communities                       those taking part in the tests had been adversely affected , in
                                                                         view of the fact that there had been no objective and legally
                            ( Case T-94/96 )                             correct test procedure . Furthermore, it was very doubtful
                              ( 96/C 247/38 )                            whether anonymity had been respected , given the
                                                                         composition of the candidates successful in the written tests
                 (Language of the case: German)                          and of the examiners .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
Martin Hagleitner, Vienna, represented by Harald Svoboda ,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna , with an address for service in
                                                                         Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Gestevision Telecinco
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, of Bonn &
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                           SA against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-95 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                        ( 96/C 247/39 )
— order the Commission to prove that the examiners were                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
    qualified , that the competition procedure was
     anonymous and that the marking was objective ,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— arrange for the marking of the applicant's written test                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    papers ( c ) and ( d ) to be checked by qualified persons            Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
     ( DG IV, Legal Service, DG I ),                                     Gestevision Telecinco SA , whose registered office is in
                                                                         Madrid , represented by Santiago Munoz Machado, of the
— set aside the measures taken in connection with                        Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    competition COM/A/904 , or at least set aside the                    with Carlos Amo Quinones , 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .
    decision of the selection board in that competition not to
     admit the applicant to the oral tests ,
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt any decision on the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          complaints made by the applicant against the Kingdom
                                                                             of Spain alleging
After being admitted to the written tests, the applicant took
part in competition COM/A/904 to establish a reserve list                    — on 2 March 1992 that the aid received by the
for administrators of Austrian nationality . By letter of                         autonomous television companies ( Empresa Pública
1 June 1995 , the Commission informed the applicant that,                         de Radio Televisión de Andalucía , Corporació
on the basis of the results of his written tests, he did not                      Catalana de Radio i Televisió, Radio Televisión
feature among the 150 best applicants and for that reason                         Madrid , Empresa Pública Radio Televisión
was not to be admitted to the oral tests . It appeared from the                   Valenciana , Radio y Televisión de Galicia and Euskal
composition of the individual results, as set out in the                          Irrati Telebista ) from their respective Autonomous
Commission 's letter, that tests ( c ) and ( d ), in comparison                   Communities was incompatible with Article 92 of
with tests ( a ) and ( b ), were in fact indicated as having each a               the P'C Treaty, and
maximum possible mark of 30 .
                                                                             — on 12 November 1993 that the aid granted by the
The applicant claims that the marking of the written tests                        Spanish State to the public entity RTVE was also
was carried out by Austrian Government officials, that, in                        contrary to the same provision of the Treaty,


title: Case C-505/04: Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/14

         Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-505/04)
   (2005/C 31/29)
   Language of procedure: English
   An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (1) with regard to Gibraltar or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of this Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 January 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 206, 31.7.2001, p. 1


title: Case C-636/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Roca Sanitario, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-408/10 Roca Sanitario v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/28

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Roca Sanitario, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-408/10 Roca Sanitario v Commission
   (Case C-636/13 P)
   2014/C 52/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Roca Sanitario, S.A. (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the arguments put forward by Roca Sanitario, S.A. in the present case;

               —

               set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-408/10; and accordingly,

               —

               uphold Roca Sanitario’s claims by reducing the fine imposed on it jointly and severally with its subsidiaries Roca France and Laufen Austria;

               —

               in the alternative, since Roca Sanitario did not participate directly in the infringement and its liability arises purely from the attribution to it of its subsidiaries’ conduct, in the event that the Court rules on the parallel appeals which Laufen Austria and Roca France intend to bring against the judgments of the General Court of 16 September 2013 in Cases T-411/10 and T-412/10 and reduces the fine imposed on those subsidiaries jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario, apply an equivalent reduction of the fine to Roca Sanitario, in accordance with the principles established in paragraph 203 of the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Roca Sanitario in the present case, as well as those incurred in Case T-408/10 in so far as the same grounds are concerned.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

                     First ground of appeal
                  , alleging an erroneous application of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principles of proportionality and individual liability in relation to the fine imposed jointly and severally on Roca Sanitario, S.A. with its subsidiary Laufen Austria, AG.

               2.

                     Second ground of appeal
                  , alleging error of law in the application of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, of the principle that reasons must be stated and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (2)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p.1).

      (2)  OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2


title: Case T-444/12: Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Novartis v OHIM — Tenimenti Angelini (LINEX)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/24

         Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Novartis v OHIM — Tenimenti Angelini (LINEX)
   (Case T-444/12)
   2012/C 399/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tenimenti Angelini SpA (Montalcino, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 August 2012 in case R 414/2011-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LINEX’, for goods and services in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8122863

      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: Italian trade mark registration No 1281035 for the word mark ‘LINES PERLA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 245598 for the word mark ‘LINES LADY’, for goods in class 5; Italian trade mark registration No 311801 for the word mark ‘LINES INTERVALLO’, for goods in class 5; Italian trade mark registration No 414841 for the word mark ‘LINES IDEA’, for goods in class 5; Italian trade mark registration No 584405 for the word mark ‘LINES SETA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 607537 for the word mark ‘LINES SETA ALI’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 643382 for the word mark ‘LINES SETA ULTRA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 980294 for the figurative mark ‘VELO’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16; Italian trade mark registration No 980295 for the figurative mark ‘LINES’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16; Italian trade mark application No MI2007C011896 for the figurative mark ‘LINES SETA’, for goods in classes 5, 16 and 25; well-known mark in Italy ‘LINES’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

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


title: Case T-588/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/18

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-588/10)
   2011/C 89/41
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, E. Leftheriotou and X. Basakou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               grant the application;

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as the decision concerns financial corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified as document C(2010) 7555 final and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 5 November 2010 (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24) as Decision 2010/668/EU, in so far as it concerns financial corrections that were imposed to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic in the areas of (a) direct aid — arable land, (b) tobacco, (c) cross compliance, (d) dried grapes, (e) the islands of the Aegean and (f) animal premiums.
   In relation to the correction for direct aid — arable land, the applicant pleads first that there was no valid legal basis for applying the old guidelines to the new common agricultural policy (CAP) and to the new single payment scheme and that that new scheme fails to define the key and ancillary controls in such a way that flat-rate corrections can be applied.
   Second, the applicant maintains that the application of the old guidelines to the new CAP seriously infringes the principle of proportionality.
   Third the applicant submits that imposition of the correction, and specifically one of more than three times the amount in question, infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since by reason of judicial decisions it was not possible to renew/complete the Land Parcel Identification System — Geographical Information System (LPIS-GIS) and Greece agreed with the European Union on an action plan to complete the LPIS-GIS, a plan which was adhered to absolutely.
   Fourth, the applicant pleads that (a) the facts have been assessed poorly and incorrectly (as regards the alleged belatedness in the carrying out and poor quality of the on-the-spot controls) and (b) it is apparent from a comparison of the data from the LPIS-GIS that was used for the 2006 claim year with the data of the 2009 LPIS-GIS which, as the Commission confirmed by an on-the-spot control, was a complete and reliable system, that the differences and failings are minimal and do not exceed 2.5 %.
   In relation to the correction for tobacco, the applicant contends, first, that Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (1) has been interpreted and applied incorrectly because the complaints that are relied upon by the European Union gave rise to absolutely no risk for the EAGGF.
   Second, the applicant maintains that the conditions for payment of the support were defined exhaustively and exclusively in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2075/92 (2) and therefore the Commission acted unlawfully in laying down in Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2848/1998 (3) as an additional condition for payment of a premium that the tobacco must be delivered to the first producer by 30 April of the year following the year of harvest (late deliveries of tobacco).
   Third, the applicant maintains that Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/1998 offends against the principle of proportionality since lateness of a few days in delivery of the tobacco that was attributable not to the tobacco producers but to the traders purchasing the tobacco deprives the producers of their entire annual income without there being the requisite scaling down/reduction of the premium, and simultaneously infringes Article 39(1)(b) TFEU and Article 3(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that it is not lawful to deny the producers the premium because of the few days’ lateness in delivering the tobacco, particularly as the undertaking pleaded the presence of exceptional circumstances which did not allow it to produce the letters of guarantee in time and to participate in the tobacco deliveries.
   Fifth, the applicant maintains that the Commission was mistaken in taking the view that transfer of the cultivation contracts is not permitted by Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 and Regulation (EC) No 2848/98.
   Sixth, the applicant pleads that (a) Articles 5 and 6(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 have been incorrectly appraised and applied as regards approval of the three first producers who did not own their own equipment (non-eligible undertakings) and (b) the Commission did not take into account in particular the information of the Monada Epexergasias Kapnou Kentrikis Elladas, A.T.P.L (Tobacco Processing Unit of Central Greece).
   In relation to cross compliance, the applicant pleads, first, that there was no valid legal basis for imposing a correction in the area of cross compliance.
   Second, the applicant maintains that it is not permissible to apply the matters laid down in document AGRI 64043/9-6-06 retroactively to the 2005 control year.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission did not comply with its obligation of cooperation that is imposed by the Treaty, since 2005 was the first year in which the new system was applied, and that the applicant complied immediately and fully with the recommendations of the European Union, so that, on the basis also of the general principle of equity, there is no justification for corrections, in particular of 10 %, in a new area of obligations.
   Fourth, the applicant contends that the Commission erred in its assessment of the facts as regards also the six points relied upon by the European Union.
   In relation to dried grapes, the applicant submits, first, that the unlawful and unjustifiable restrictions are based on an error as to the facts and on misappraisal of the facts and of the provisions of Article 3(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999. (4)

   Second, the applicant maintains that the fivefold increase, from 2 % to 10 %, in the correction for sultanas from the 2002-03 period to the 2003-04 period and the more than doubling of the correction, from 10 % to 25 %, from the 2003-04 period to the 2004-05 period and the 2005-06 period result from incorrect application of the guidelines for flat-rate deductions and incorrect assessment of the facts, constitute a clear breach of the principle of proportionality and exceed the discretion available to the European Union.
   Third, the applicant pleads that (a) the fivefold increase in the correction for currants from 5 % in the 2004-05 period to 25 % in the 2005-06 period results from an incorrect interpretation and application of the guidelines for flat-rate deductions, clearly infringes the principle of proportionality and exceeds the discretion available to the European Union in respect of imposition of the correction and (b) that the assessment of 5 % in the 2004-05 period, a period in which no aid was granted for vineyard plots which did not achieve the minimum yield, is arbitrary and not justified.
   Fourth, the applicant pleads misappraisal of the facts in relation to the alleged deficiencies in the vineyard register and to identification and measurement of vineyard plots.
   Fifth, the applicant maintains that the facts have been assessed incorrectly so far as concerns the alleged shortcomings in respect of the requirements for management and supervision of the measure.
   In relation to the islands of the Aegean, the applicant pleads, first, infringement of the principle of res judicata, given that, by its judgment of 27 October 2005 in Case C-175/03 Greece v Commission, not published in the ECR, the Court of Justice annulled the financial correction which had been imposed in this field for the same years, or, in the alternative, infringement of Articles 264 TFEU and 266 TFEU.
   Second, the applicant contends that Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, (5) which provides that corrections are to be imposed on the basis of the 24-month rule, has been interpreted and applied incorrectly, in the alternative, that essential procedural requirements have been breached, in the further alternative, that the European Union was not empowered, ratione temporis, to impose a correction in 2010 based on the letter of 17 August 2000, or finally that the imposition of corrections in 2010 for shortcomings of the control system in 1999, 2000 and 2001 infringes the general principle of legal certainty and the general principles requiring action to be taken within a reasonable time and the European Union to act timeously, on account of the unjustified and excessively long duration of the procedure.
   Lastly, in relation to animal premiums, the applicant maintains, first, that the procedure for clearance of the accounts is invalid because the Commission was not empowered, ratione temporis, to impose financial corrections and, second, that the facts have been assessed incorrectly, and the principle of proportionality has been infringed, as regards appraisal of the risk to the fund posed by the specific issues.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco.

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector.

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1621/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards aid for the cultivation of grapes to produce certain varieties of dried grapes.

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 September 1998 in Case T-234/97: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Promotion - Equal treatment - Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
C 340/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.11.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           in the tobacco sector (OJ L 317 of 18.12.1993, p. 30) Ð
                    of 16 September 1998                            the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                    of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and
in Case T-234/97: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of                J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                the European Communities (1)                        15 September 1998, the operative part of which is as
(Officials   Ð Promotion Ð Equal treatment                 Ð        follows:
            Consideration of comparative merits)
                         (98/C 340/36)                              1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
               (Language of the case: French)                       2. the applicant shall pay the Commission's costs. The
                                                                        intervener shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-234/97: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                 (1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.
Dalheim (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini,
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 180 Route de
Longwy, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro)
Ð application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission not to promote the applicant to grade A 4 in                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the 1996 promotions procedure and, second, for                                          of 15 September 1998
compensation for the resulting damage Ð the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,             in Case T-100/94: Kapniki A. Michalidis AE and Others
President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.                    v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has            (Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 Ð
given a judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:                                         Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (98/C 340/38)
1. dismisses the action;
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                      (Language of the case: Greek)
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.                                            In Case T-100/94: Kapniki A. Michalidis AE, P. Moskof
                                                                    AE Kapna eis Filla, M. Bogiatzoglu Eksagogikos Oikos
                                                                    Kapnon AE, Diethnis Kapniki Ð Georgios Allamanis AE
                                                                    and Ekselka Emborikai kai Viomikhanikai Epikhirisis AE,
                                                                    established at Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by Elena
                                                                    Metaxaki, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aikaterini Thill-
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Kamitakis, 4 rue de l'Avenir, supported by Hellenic
                    of 15 September 1998                            Republic (Agents: Panagiotis Mylonopoulos, Dimitra
in Case T-79/94: Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonimos                      Tsangaraki, Meletis Tsotsanis and Eleni Lyratzaki), v.
Kapnemborikis Etairia AE v. Commission of the European              Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Maria
                       Communities (1)                              Condou-Durande) Ð application for partial annulment of
                                                                    Commission Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December
(Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 Ð                1993 concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be
                        Inadmissibility)                            applied in the tobacco sector (OJ L 317 of 18.12.1993,
                         (98/C 340/37)                              p. 30) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                    composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W.
                                                                    Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                (Language of the case: Greek)                       an order on 15 September 1998, the operative part of
                                                                    which is as follows:
In Case T-79/94: Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonimos
Kapnemborikis Etairia AE, established at Kavala (Greece),
represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the                  1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la              2. the applicants shall jointly and severally pay the
Foire, supported by Hellenic Republic (Agents: Panagiotis               Commission's costs. The intervener shall bear its own
Mylonopoulos, Dimitra Tsangaraki, Meletis Tsotsanis                     costs.
and Eleni Lyratzaki), v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) Ð
application for partial annulment of Commission                     (1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.
Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993
concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be applied


C 234/12                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin
                                                                      Automobiles EURL against the order delivered on
                         (Fifth Chamber)                              13 February 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                         of 28 May 1998                               T-275/97 between SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
in    Case    C-298/97: Commission of the European
              Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                           (Case C-153/98 P)
                                                                                (98/C 234/23)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Directive 91/157/EEC Ð Failure by a Member State to
adopt programmes provided for in Article 6 of the
                             directive)                               An appeal against the order delivered on 13 February
                                                                      1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                           (98/C 234/22)                              Instance of the European Communities in Case T-275/97
                                                                      between SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                      on 17 April 1998 by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL,
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                      represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
                                                                      Brussels Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de
                                                                      Bourbon.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities of 13 February 1998;
In Case C-198/97: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by Fernando Castillo de la
Torre) v Kingdom of Spain (represented by Paloma Plaza                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
García), for an application for a declaration that, by
failing to adopt or communicate to the Commission
within the prescribed period the programmes provided for              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Article 6 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March
1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain
dangerous substances (OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 38), the               Breach of general principles of Community law, in
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under           particular the right to an effective judicial remedy,
that article, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                 legitimate expectations, legal certainty and respect for the
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                    rights of the defence; failure to observe the provisions of
M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and                   the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,              Fundamental Freedoms (Article F.2 of the Maastricht
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in                    Treaty): since the decision to take no further action on the
which it:                                                             complaint did not mention the court before which an
                                                                      action could be brought, or the time-limit for doing so, it
                                                                      did not fulfil the obligation to respect the fundamental
                                                                      principles of Community law.
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
     period the programmes referred to in Article 6 of
     Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
     batteries and accumulators containing certain
     dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
     to fulfil its obligations under that article;
                                                                      Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Federal Republic
                                                                      of Germany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-156/98)
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 234/24)
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities on 24 April 1998 by the
                                                                      Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/13
Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor in the Federal Ministry of             payment of tax to a later assessment period. At the
Economic Affairs, D-53107 Bonn, and Dr Klaus Alfred                   latest when the shareholding is disposed of, however,
Schroeter, Rechtsanwalt, of Hartwicusstraûe 5, D-22087                the tax then has to be paid.
Hamburg.
                                                                      Even if the opportunity, improved to a degree as a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           result of this tax advantage, for companies to obtain
                                                                      capital is regarded as an economic benefit, that alone
                                                                      does not suffice for it to be concluded that there is an
                                                                      element of aid. The opportunity, improved by the
1. Annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                      altered framework, to attract capital in market
    Communities of 21 January 1998 Ð K (1998) 231
                                                                      conditions does not have the character of aid because
    endg. Ð concerning tax advantages under
                                                                      of the absence of resources inflowing from State
    Paragraph 52(8) of the German Einkommensteuer-
                                                                      sources.
    gesetz;
                                                                      The Commission wrongly supposes that the investor
2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                             who has received the tax advantage will pass his tax
                                                                      benefit on in whole or in part. From an economic
                                                                      point of view, no reasons for this can be seen.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      It is well known, as the Commission too is aware, that
Ð Breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: Paragraph                   in the region in question it is still the case that
    52(8) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on Income                 significantly more equity capital is sought than the
    Tax, the EStG') provides for extended possibilities of           available supply of capital. Investors who are given
    rolling over hidden reserves on the acquisition of                tax advantages are thus not competing with other
    shareholdings. The advantages are for the acquisition             investors who outbid' them. Finally, the temporary
    Ð including via intermediate holding companies Ð of               nature of the tax benefit following from
    shareholdings in companies with their seat and                    Paragraph 52(8) of the EStG precludes the investor
    management in the new Länder or Berlin and with not               who receives the tax benefit from passing his tax
    more than 250 employees. The Commission rightly                   benefit on in whole or in part, because he will then
    assumes in the contested decision that this provision in          mostly be in a worse position ultimately than if he had
    favour of potential capital investors who are liable to           not rolled over the hidden reserves realised from his
    income tax constitutes an aid-free general measure.               original shareholding but had paid tax thereon at
    The Commission wrongly considers, however, that by                once.
    this tax advantage the companies themselves are given
    an economic benefit; nowhere in the entire grounds of
    the contested decision is it clearly and unambigously             The Commission's attempt to separate the concept of
    stated what the element of aid is alleged to consist in           aid from the requirement for the use of State resources
    and how it is to be quantified.                                   is not only incompatible with the wording of
                                                                      Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, but would also
                                                                      ultimately largely deprive the Member States of
                                                                      capacity to make general changes to the economic
    The Commission also fails to provide any
                                                                      framework, binding them to approval' by the
    comprehensible reasoning concerning the elements of
                                                                      Commission via the mechanisms of Articles 92 and 93
    threatened distortion of competition and effect on
                                                                      of the EC Treaty.
    trade between Member States.
                                                                   Ð (In the alternative) Failure to observe the de minimis
    Finally, the contested decision also contains                     principle: As follows from Commission Notice 98/
    insufficient reasons, or no reasons at all, for finding           C 68/06, the Commission regards aid of up to ECU
    that the conditions of Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty          100 000 over a three-year period as compatible with
    are not satisfied and that a declaration of                       the common market under the de minimis principle. In
    compatibility under Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty is             view of that general assessment no reason can be seen
    (allegedly) impossible; the possibility of requiring the          why the Commission does not assess an economic
    provision to be altered rather than abolished was                 benefit whose alleged aid element is neither specifiable
    evidently not even considered by the Commission.                  nor quantifiable as insignificant under the de minimis
                                                                      principle.
Ð Incorrect application of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty:
    In the case of both the general rule in Paragraph 6b of        Ð (In the alternative) Failure to take account of
    the EStG and the amendment under Paragraph 52(8)                  Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty: This provision is
    of the EStG it is in the nature of the tax advantage              Community law in force and applicable as such. The
    accorded that the resulting tax benefit is of a                   Commission is restricted to examining whether the
    temporary nature only. The taxpayer can postpone the              conditions for the statutory exception are satisfied; if
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     that is the case, there is no scope left for the exercise        falls within the scope of the EC Treaty because, although
     of discretion.                                                   their main purpose is not to maximise or redistribute
                                                                      profits, the associations in question may provide services
                                                                      for consideration or obtain income, thus participating in
Ð (In the alternative) Incorrect exercise of discretion in            economic life. The expression profit-making' used in the
     making an assessment under Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of           second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty refers to
     the EC Treaty.                                                   a Community law concept and does not relate to the
                                                                      domestic law of the Member States.
Ð In so far as the Commission considers that there was a
     breach of Article 52 of the EC Treaty, that too is not
     capable of founding the lawfulness of the contested
     decision. Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not
     constitute a suitable legal basis for the contested
     decision.                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court
                                                                      of 12 February 1998, in the case of Holst Italia SpA
                                                                      against Municipality of Cagliari and Ruhrwasser AG
                                                                                International Water Management SpA
                                                                                (Case C-176/98)
Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the                                         (98/C 234/26)
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                          (Case C-172/98)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           (98/C 234/25)                              European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Administrative Court,
                                                                      Sardinia), of 12 February 1998, received at the Court
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  Registry on 11 May 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               case of Holst Italia SpA against Municipality of Cagliari
on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European                       and Ruhrwasser AG International Water Management
Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal               SpA on the following question:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          whether Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992
                                                                      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                      of public service contracts allows a company to prove that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           it possesses the technical and financial qualifications laid
                                                                      down for admission to a published tendering procedure
                                                                      for the award of a public service contract by relying on
1. declare that, by requiring, as appropriate, the presence           the references of another person who is the sole
     of a Belgian associate on the board of an association            shareholder of one of the companies which own the first-
     or a minimum number of associates of Belgian                     mentioned company.'
     nationality which must, moreover, constitute a
     majority, before an association may be incorporated or           (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     granted legal personality, the Kingdom of Belgium has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the EC
     Treaty;
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-188/98)
The legislation referred to, namely:
                                                                                (98/C 234/27)
Ð the Law of 25 October 1919 which confers legal
     personality on international associations whose objects          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     are philanthropic, religious, scientific, artistic or            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     pedagogical',                                                    Communities on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
Ð the Law of 27 June 1921 which confers legal                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
     personality on non-profit-making associations . . .'             Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-379/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Electric Bike World Ltd v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LIFECYCLE — Earlier national word mark LIFECYCLE — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Electric Bike World Ltd v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)
   (Case T-379/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LIFECYCLE - Earlier national word mark LIFECYCLE - Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 352/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Electric Bike World Ltd (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Brunswick Corp. (Lake Forest, Illinois, United States of America)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 May 2012 (Case R 2308/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brunswick Corp. and Electric Bike World Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Electric Bike World Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-559/14: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council (‘Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/13

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-559/14) (1)

   ((‘Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 - Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility’))
   (2015/C 228/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ackermann Saatzucht (Irlbach, Germany) and the other applicants listed in the annex to the order (represented by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and R. Van de Westelaken, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the application of the European Seed Association (ESA) for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case C-490/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Gálóczhi-Tömösváry Róbert v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Gálóczhi-Tömösváry Róbert v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal
   (Case C-490/12)
   2013/C 79/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gálóczhi-Tömösváry Róbert

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

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

               2.

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

               3.

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


title: Case T-344/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014  — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community mark Deluxe — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)
   (Case T-344/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community mark Deluxe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 056/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and A. Wrage, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1223/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Deluxe as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-391/10: Action brought on 3 August 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/16

         Action brought on 3 August 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-391/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2007/36/EC expired on 3 August 2009. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 184, p. 17.


title: Case C-324/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA v New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Sitre Srl, European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Article 57(f) — Authorisation — Substances of very high concern — Identification — Equivalent level of concern — Hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride and hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA v New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Sitre Srl, European Chemicals Agency, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission
   (Case C-324/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Article 57(f) - Authorisation - Substances of very high concern - Identification - Equivalent level of concern - Hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride and hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride))
   (2017/C 151/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH, Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: New Japan Chemical (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), REACh ChemAdvice GmbH (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), Sitre Srl (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, avocats), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Buchanan, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and J. Stuyck, advocaat), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Hitachi Chemical Europe GmbH and Polynt SpA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders New Japan Chemical and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-116/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy by judgment of that court of 14 February 2005 in Ets Dhumeaux et Cie SA — Société d'Etudes et de Commerce ‘SEC’ v ALBV SA, ALBV SA v Tragex Gel — Institut d'expertise vétérinaire ‘IEV’, ALBV SA v Cigma International SA and ALBV SA v Mr Gustin in his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy by judgment of that court of 14 February 2005 in Ets Dhumeaux et Cie SA — Société d'Etudes et de Commerce ‘SEC’ v ALBV SA, ALBV SA v Tragex Gel — Institut d'expertise vétérinaire ‘IEV’, ALBV SA v Cigma International SA and ALBV SA v Mr Gustin in his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel
   (Case C-116/05)
   (2005/C 115/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy (France) of 14 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 10 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ets Dhumeaux et Cie SA — Société d'Etudes et de Commerce ‘SEC’ and ALBV SA, ALBV SA and Tragex Gel — Institut d'expertise vétérinaire ‘IEV’, ALBV SA and Cigma International SA and ALBV SA and Mr Gustin in his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel on the following questions:

               —

               Where the export of beef and veal on which refunds are granted requires the presentation of a health certificate formally drawn up by the competent veterinary authority after daily inspections of the cutting plant for that meat, must the principle of legitimate expectations be interpreted as meaning that the recipients of that certificate (the intermediary purchaser, the exporter) may legitimately expect it to correspond with the product origin indicated, such that any errors, faults or negligent acts committed by those authorities in exercising their powers must be regarded as exceeding the ordinary risks of business borne by those recipients and must lead the Member State in question to assume directly the financial and other consequences thereof, in particular vis-à-vis the EAGGF?

               —

               Where trading in beef and veal requires the presentation of certificates of health and origin formally drawn up by the competent veterinary authority after daily inspections of the production plant, do the errors, faults or negligent acts established by a court, which are committed by those authorities in exercising their powers and lead to incorrect certification to the detriment of the operators and exporters, constitute force majeure?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2000 in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, Camar srl and Tico srl against the Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Failure to take measures)

text:
C 118/36                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl, established in Padua
                                                                           (Italy), applicant in Case T-117/98, represented by W. Viscar-
                       of 7 December 2000                                  dini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                           E. Arendt, 8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt, the applicant in Case
in Case T-77/95 DEP Union française de l’express (Ufex)                    T-79/96 supported by the Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                           and F. Quadri), against Commission of the European Com-
                               ties (1)                                    munities (Agents: in Case T-79/96, E. de March, in Case
                                                                           T-260/97, H. van Vliet and A. Dal Ferro and, in Case
                         (Taxation of costs)                               T-117/98, F. Ruggeri Laderchi, H. van Vliet and A. Dal Ferro)
                                                                           and Council of the European Union, defendant in Case
                         (2001/C 118/101)                                  T-260/97 (Agents: J.P. Hix and A. Tanca), supported by French
                                                                           Republic (Agents: in Case T-79/96, C. de Salins and M. F. Pascal,
                                                                           and, in Case T-260/97, K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) —
                    (Language of the case: French)                         application for, first, in Case T-79/96, a declaration that the
                                                                           Commission unlawfully failed to take measures, on the basis
                                                                           of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of
In Case T-77/95 DEP: Union française de l’express (Ufex),
                                                                           13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market
formerly Syndicat français de l’express international (SFEI),
                                                                           in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), which would have enabled
established in Roissy-en-France, France, DHL International,
                                                                           the applicant to obtain supplies of bananas from third
established in Roissy-en-France, Service CRIE, established in
                                                                           countries following the situation resulting from the civil
Paris, France, and May Courier, established in Paris, represented
                                                                           war in Somalia; in Case T-260/97, for annulment of the
by E. Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and J. Derenne, of the
                                                                           Commission’s decision of 17 July 1997 rejecting the applicant’s
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                           request seeking, by virtue of Article 30 of that regulation,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-
                                                                           transitional measures to allow the annual quantity allocated to
Croix, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           it for obtaining import licences for bananas from non-
R. Lyal and J.-Y. Art) — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                           traditional ACP countries to be calculated in relation to the
be reimbursed by the defendant to the applicants following
                                                                           quantities which it marketed during 1988, 1989 and 1990;
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2000 in
                                                                           and, in Case T-117/98, for annulment of the Commission’s
Case T-77/95 Ufex and Others v Commission [2000] ECR
                                                                           decision of 23 April 1998 rejecting the applicants’ request for
II-0000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                           an adjustment, pursuant to Article 16(3) of that regulation, of
composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
                                                                           the tariff quota for banana imports for the first half of 1998 in
J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                           order to take account of the consequences of the floods which
7 December 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           occurred in Somalia on and after 28 October 1997; and, in all
                                                                           three cases, for compensation for the damage allegedly caused,
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the Commission to the        in Case T-79/96, by the Commission’s conduct, and allegedly
applicants shall be fixed at BEF 4 500 000.                                suffered, in Cases T-260/97 and T-117/98, as a result of the
                                                                           Commission’s rejections of their requests, the Court of First
(1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.1995.
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                           President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio
                                                                           González, Administrator, made an order on 6 December 2000
                                                                           the operative part of which is as follows:
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 1)    The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs, as well as
                                                                                those incurred by Camar in Case T-79/96 R.
                       of 6 December 2000
in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, Camar
srl and Tico srl against the Commission of the European                    2)    The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs in Case
    Communities and Council of the European Union (1)                            T-260/97 R and 90 % of those incurred by Camar in the
                                                                                same case.
                    (Failure to take measures)
                         (2001/C 118/102)
                                                                           3)    The Council shall bear its own costs in Case T-260/97 R.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, Camar srl,                 4)    Camar shall bear 10 % of the costs it incurred in Case
established in Florence (Italy), applicant in Cases T-79/96,                     T-260/97 R.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 118/37
5)      The Italian Republic and the French Republic shall bear their            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        own costs in Case T-79/96 R.
6)      The French Republic shall bear its own costs in Case                                     of 15 December 2000
        T-260/97 R.
                                                                           in Case T-113/99: The Galileo Company and Galileo
                                                                              International LLC v Council of the European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996, C 357 of 22.11.1997 and C 327 of
      24.10.1998.
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person individu-
                                                                                ally concerned)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/104)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-113/99: The Galileo Company, established in
                        of 27 November 200                                 Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom, and Galileo International
                                                                           LLC, established in Rosemount, Illinois, United States of
                                                                           America, represented by R. Plender QC and S. Masters,
in Case T-78/99 (92): Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale                   Barrister, instructed by K. Holmes and D. Austin, Solicitors,
     Elder v Commission of the European Communities (1)                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                           of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill,
                                                                           supported by Amadeus Global Travel Distribution SA, estab-
(Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for                   lished in Madrid, Spain, represented by M. Caballero Clavijo,
     the purposes of the proceedings — Litigation insurance)               of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the offices of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston
                                                                           Churchill, against Council of the European Union (Agents:
                          (2001/C 118/103)                                 A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop), supported by Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: F. Benyon) — application
                                                                           for partial annulment of Article 1(7)(b) of Council Regulation
                                                                           (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 amending Council
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 on a code of conduct for
                                                                           computerised reservation systems (CRS) (OJ 1999 L 40, p. 1)
In Case T-78/99 (92): Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale                   — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
Elder, residing in Dundee, United Kingdom, represented by                  of: A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
S. Crosby, Solicitor, 42 Rue du Taciturne, Brussels (Belgium)              H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on 15 December 2000,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    the operative part of which is as follows:
U. Wölker and X. Lewis) — application for taxation of the
costs to be reimbursed by the defendant to the applicants
pursuant to the order for removal from the register made by                1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
the Court of First Instance on 13 October 1999 (Case T-78/99
Elder v Commission, not published in the ECR) — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,             2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the
President, N.J. Forwood and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                         defendant.
Registrar, has given an order on 27 November 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           3.    The interveners shall bear their own costs.
The application for taxation of costs is dismissed.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
( 1)  OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.


title: Case T-375/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008 — Pellegrini v Commission (Interim measures — Non-contractual liability of the Commission — Commission's failure to act — Provisional payment of damages sought in main proceedings — No prima facie case)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/39

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 January 2008 — Pellegrini v Commission
   (Case T-375/07 R)
   (Interim measures - Non-contractual liability of the Commission - Commission's failure to act - Provisional payment of damages sought in main proceedings - No prima facie case)
   (2008/C 64/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Rosario Maria Pellegrini (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Sulfaro, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Request that the Commission be ordered to pay compensation, on a provisional basis, for the financial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission's failure to ensure full application and correct interpretation of the provisions of Community law governing the activities of financial intermediaries.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-528/15: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)
   (Case T-528/15) (1)

   (2016/C 165/27)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-363/15 P and C-364/15 P: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG (Appeal — European Union trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/10

      Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG
      (Joined Cases C-363/15 P and C-364/15 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - European Union trade mark - No need to adjudicate))
      (2016/C 454/20)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, avvocati)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Bullock and D. Hanf, acting as Agents), Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG (represented by: T. Boddien and A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the appeals.

                  2.

                  Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG shall pay its own costs in Case C-363/15 P and Case C-364/15 P.

                  3.

                  Louis Vuitton Malletier SA shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Case C-363/15 P and Case C-364/15 P.

         (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case T-357/02: Action brought on 4 December 2002 by Freistaat Sachsen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 31/20                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               8.2.2003
The applicant also submits that the application of                            efficiency of enterprises’. These guidelines were first notified
Article 87(1) EC is not excluded by Directive 92/81/EEC. That                 to, and approved by, the Commission in 1992. The purpose
directive does not create any exemption from the law on State                 of the notification which gave rise to the contested decision
aid, the directive being based exclusively on Article 93 EC but               was to acquire a renewed extension of the approval with effect
not also on Article 88(2) EC or Article 87(3)(e) EC. The                      from 1 January 2001 for a five-year period until 31 December
Commission’s view disregards the principles of the primacy of                 2006.
the Treaty over provisions of secondary law and leads to an
incorrect application of Articles 87 and 88 EC.
( 1) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-            In its application the applicant complains that the Commission
     isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992      found that the four part-programmes ‘coaching’, ‘participation
     L 316, p. 12).                                                           in trade fairs’, ‘cooperation’ and ‘promotion of product design’
                                                                              of the above guidelines were not compatible with the common
                                                                              market inasmuch as they exceeded the scope and the intensity
                                                                              of aid laid down in Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (1). Moreover,
                                                                              the applicant challenges the finding that the part-programme
                                                                              ‘cooperation’ provides for operating aid that is incompatible
                                                                              with the common market and that Germany may implement
                                                                              the four abovementioned part-programmes only when they
                                                                              have been brought into conformity with the contested
Action brought on 4 December 2002 by Freistaat Sachsen                        decision.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                            (Case T-357/02)
                                                                              The applicant submits that the Commission’s findings are in
                                                                              many respects incorrect both substantively and also pro-
                            (2003/C 31/29)                                    cedurally. It claims that, the Commission, in breach of its
                                                                              Communication on the accelerated clearance of aid schemes
                     (Language of the case: German)                           for SMEs and of amendments of existing schemes (2), reached
                                                                              its decision under the normal procedure and wrongly based its
                                                                              conclusions as to the compatibility of the aid measure notified
                                                                              by the applicant exclusively on Regulation (EC) No 70/2001.
                                                                              The Commission ought to have based its decision on the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    sized enterprises (3) applicable at the time of the notification,
European Communities on 4 December 2002 by the Freistaat                      under which the notified aid measure is compatible with the
Sachsen (Germany), represented by T. Lübbig, lawyer.                          common market.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
—       annul Article 2(2), Article 3 and Article 4 of Commission
                                                                              ought to have authorised the notified aid measure even if this
        Decision C(2002) 2606 of 24 September 2002 on
                                                                              had been examined on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 70/
        Germany’s intended aid rules ‘Guidelines on the pro-
        motion of small and medium-sized businesses —                         2001, which entered into force only after the notification.
        Improvement of efficiency of enterprises in Sachsen’;
—       order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                              Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has not
                                                                              adequately shown the existence of a restriction of competition.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              (1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
In the context of its promotion of small businesses, the                           the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid
                                                                                to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33).
applicant grants members of the professions and small and
                                                                              (2 ) OJ 1992 C 213, p. 10.
medium-sized enterprises with a registered office or place of                 (3 ) OJ 1996 C 213, p. 4.
business in Sachsen, on application, subsidies by way of the
promotion of projects in order to promote the economy. This
promotion is based on the ‘Guidelines of the Sachsen State
Ministry for the Economy and Labour on the promotion of
small and medium-sized businesses — Improvement of the


title: Case T-111/12: Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/24

         Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-111/12)
   2012/C 126/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Management of waste by the Autonomous Community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043); ‘Drainage and water supply in the Douro river basin — 2001’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070); ‘Management of Waste by the Autonomous Community of Valencia — 2011 — Group II’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026); and ‘Waste-water disposal and treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI No. 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law essentially identical to those already raised in Case T-109/12 Spain v Commission.
   The applicant alleges, in particular, a failure to state reasons with regard to the application of the principle of proportionality under Article H.2 of Annex II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130 p. 1), since the Commission simply referred to the document ‘Guidelines for determining financial corrections to [be made to expenditure cofinanced by the structural funds or the cohesion fund for non-compliance with the rules on] public procurement’ — presented to the Member States at the Coordination Committee of the Funds of 28 November 2007 — even though that document does not analyse the reasons which could justify setting the flat-rate correction percentages set out therein.


title: Case C-147/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 29 March 2010 — British Sugar plc v Rural Payments Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 29 March 2010 — British Sugar plc v Rural Payments Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-147/10)
   2010/C 148/29
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: British Sugar plc

      Defendant: Rural Payments Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 (1) invalid, having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-5/06 and C-23/06 to C-36/06 Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen [2008] ECR I-3231 and joined cases C-175/07 to C-184/07 SAFBA [2008] ECR I-184*?

               2.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 otherwise invalid, having regard to the legal basis on which it has been adopted, namely Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2)?

               3.

               In calculating the compensation payable in respect of overpayments of sugar production levies in the marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, is the applicable currency exchange rate and date of conversion a matter to be determined by European Union law? If so, is Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 to be interpreted as requiring compensation to be paid by reference to the currency exchange rates that applied at the time the overpaid levy was originally calculated? If so, is Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 valid?

               4.

               In relation to interest:

                           (i)

                           Does EU law preclude a person in the position of the Claimant from recovering interest on sums overpaid as a result of an invalid Commission regulation from the national authority competent to collect production levies in circumstances where the national authority competent to collect production levies is precluded from recovering interest on the corresponding sums repayable to it from the Commission?

                           (ii)

                           If the answer to (i) above is yes, does the EU legislation concerning own resources (Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom (3), and its implementing Regulation (EC) No 1150/2000 (4)), properly construed, preclude a national authority competent to collect production levies from recovering interest on sums repayable to it from the Commission in the circumstances of the present case?

                           (iii)

                           If the answer to (i) above is no: does EU law preclude a national court or authority from exercising any discretion it may have to award no interest in such circumstances when making an award to a person in the position of the Claimant?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006
   OJ L 321, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 178, p. 1

      (3)  Council Decision of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources
   OJ L 253, p. 42

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources
   OJ L 130, p. 1