title: Case T-349/16: Action brought on 30 June 2016 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/48

         Action brought on 30 June 2016 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council
   (Case T-349/16)
   (2016/C 305/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Saderat Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: T. de la Mare, QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister and S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/603 of 18 April 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 8), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/609 of 18 April 2016, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2016 L 104, p. 19), insofar as they apply to the applicant, and

               —

               order the Council pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is (i) an abuse of process and as such a misuse of powers, (ii) contrary to the Applicant’s rights to good administration and (iii) contrary to the principles of res judicata, legal certainty and finality.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is in violation of Article 266 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 violates the applicant’s fundamental rights to respect for its reputation and peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is not required by and is contrary to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.


title: Case C-531/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Public health — Pharmacies — Provisions restricting the right to operate a pharmacy to pharmacists alone — Justification — Reliability and quality of the provision of medicinal products to the public — Professional independence of pharmacists — Undertakings engaged in the distribution of pharmaceutical products — Municipal pharmacies)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-531/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Public health - Pharmacies - Provisions restricting the right to operate a pharmacy to pharmacists alone - Justification - Reliability and quality of the provision of medicinal products to the public - Professional independence of pharmacists - Undertakings engaged in the distribution of pharmaceutical products - Municipal pharmacies)
   2009/C 153/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and H. Krämer, Agents, assisted by G. Giacomini and E. Boglione, avvocati)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, assisted by G. Fiengo, Agents, avvocato dello Stato)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and F. Díez Moreno, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka and L. Ostrovska, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and T. Kröll, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Rules governing ownership of pharmacies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Italian Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T -56/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Bioelettrica v Commission

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/18

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Bioelettrica v Commission
   (Case T -56/03) (1)

   (2006/C 121/33)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case C-24/03: Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/9
      (c)   information is given, albeit with the aim of mislead-         Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Italian Republic
            ing shareholders or the public in order to obtain                 against Commission of the European Communities
            unjust enrichment, which is the result of valuations
            or appraisals which, taken individually, diverge by
            no more than a certain percentage from a correct                                       (Case C-24/03)
            valuation or appraisal,
                                                                                (2003/C 70/15)
      (d) the falsehood, fraudulent omission or other infor-
            mation which does not faithfully depict the asset or
            financial position or profit and loss of the company
            does not ‘appreciably affect’ the portrayal of the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            asset or financial position of the company or group           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
            of companies to which it belongs?                             Communities on 15 January 2003 by the Italian Republic,
                                                                          represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                          Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.
3.    With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
      to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
      provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and Fourth
      Directive 78/660/EEC, must those directives and, in                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      particular, the combined provisions of Article 44(2)(g)
      of the Treaty Establishing the European Community,                  annul the decision of the Commission of 5 November 2002
      Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First Directive and            No 4127 (1), which excludes from Community financing
      Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth Directive, as               certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic under the
      amended by Directive 83/349/EEC and Directive 90/605/               Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
      EEC, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a              Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) as follows:
      Member State under which, in the case of breach of the
      duty to publish true and fair company documents, which
                                                                          —     Point B.2.1 of the report — financial year 1999-2000 —
      is intended to protect ‘the interests of shareholders and
                                                                                fruit and vegetables — amount: EUR 68 050,00
      third parties’, creates a system of penalties which:
                                                                          —     Point B.2.1 of the report — financial year 2000-2001 —
      (a)   in the most serious cases (where material damage or                 fruit and vegetables — amount: EUR 7 853,00
            loss is caused) permits only shareholders or creditors
            to apply for the imposition of penalties, thus                —     Point B.4.1.6 of the report — financial year 1998-1999
            depriving third parties generally of effective protec-              — cereal storage — amount: EUR 1 272 616,34
            tion,
      (b) in less serious cases (where no material damage is
            caused and no complaint is submitted) provides for            Pleas in law and main arguments
            a minor or summary offence (‘contravvenzione’)
            which, in the context of the Italian procedure
            system, is, for the reasons set out in the grounds for
            the present order, ineffectual,                               1. F r u i t a n d v e g e t a b l e s
      (c)   permits individuals, by means of deferred with-               The Commission finds that the Italian authorities failed to
            drawal of their complaint, to undo entirely any               observe fully the provisions of Regulation No 2200/96 (2)
            protection of the right to transparency in company            (Article 25) and Regulation No 659/97 (3) (Article 9(2) and (3))
            matters?                                                      resulting in an underestimation of the quantities communi-
                                                                          cated when fixing the Community withdrawal compensation
                                                                          (CWC): this led to the Commission adopting a CWC which
                                                                          was too high.
( 1) OJ L 65 of 14.03.1968, p. 8.
( 2) OJ L 222 of 14.08.1978, p. 11.
( 3) OJ L 193 of 18.07.1983, p. 1.                                        However, the Italian authorities take the view that, according
( 4) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.                                       to the Community legislation in force, they provided sufficient
                                                                          information to the Commission which should have been able
                                                                          to revise its calculation of the CWC, having found minimal
                                                                          differences with respect to the final figures provided by the
                                                                          paying agency. The failure on the part of the Commission to
                                                                          amend the CWC cannot be attributed to the Italian authorities
                                                                          which pointed it out and sought to quantify it.
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/10                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
2.    Publ i c s to rag e of cerea l s                                     (Federal Finance Court) of 29 August 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 23 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling
The Commission claims that the AIMA, since abolished, in the               in the proceedings between Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach and
                                                                           Hans U. Hundt-Eßwein on the following questions:
course of taking over cereals during the marketing year 1997-
1998, failed to fix the first day on which the consignment was
taken over in the communication accepting the offer, so that               1.    Is a person who purchases or builds a house for his own
the date for setting the price was the date of first actual delivery             residential purposes acting as a taxable person in the
by the offeror. In the Commission’s view, that entailed a                        purchasing or building of that residence if he intends to
greater expenditure for the EAGGF than it might otherwise                        use one of its rooms as a ‘home office’ for engaging in a
have been liable for if the AIMA, while not having fixed the                     sideline activity as a self-employed person?
delivery date beforehand, had nevertheless taken as a reference
date the day following the date of the letter of acceptance of
the offer, when delivery could potentially have begun. AGEA,
the paying agency, does not agree with the position adopted                If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
by the Commission inasmuch as Regulation No 689/92 (4)
does not provide at all for the day following the date of the
letter of acceptance of the offer being adopted as the basis for           2.    Where a community by undivided shares or marital
calculating the price to be paid for takeover of the goods.                      community which does not itself operate as a business
Moreover, the regulation itself empowers the intervention                        places an order in common for a capital item, should it
agency to lay down the delivery schedule, so that AIMA                           be assumed that the purchase concerned is made by a
assumes the schedule agreed between the storekeeper and the                      non-taxable person who is not entitled to deduct the
offeror.                                                                         value added tax charged on the purchase as input tax, or
                                                                                are the members of that community recipients of the
                                                                                transaction performed?
3.    Premi um i n th e ra w to bac co sect or
A review by the European Court of Auditors has shown an                    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
error consisting in failure to observe the guarantee threshold
in respect of the 01 tobacco variety for the 1998 marketing
year.                                                                      3.    Where spouses in a community by undivided shares
                                                                                purchase a capital item but that item is used by only one
Such an error did not lead to the specific guarantee threshold                   of those two spouses for the purposes of his business:
for the remaining varieties being exceeded in the year in
question.                                                                        (a)   is that spouse entitled to effect only a pro rata
                                                                                deduction in respect of the input tax attributable to
( 1) Commission Decision of 5 November 2002 excluding from
                                                                                his share as purchaser,
     Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
     States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                   or
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ 2002 L 306, p. 26.
( 2) OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1997 L 100, p. 22.                                                       (b) is that spouse entitled under Article 17(2)(a) of
( 4) OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18.                                                              Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to deduct as input tax the
                                                                                proportion attributable to his business use of the
                                                                                item as a whole (subject to the invoicing require-
                                                                                ments set out in Question 4)?
                                                                           4.    For that spouse/co-owner to exercise his right to deduct
                                                                                in accordance with Article 18 of Directive 77/388/
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                          EEC, must he hold an invoice, as provided for under
hof by order of that Court of 29 August 2002 in the                              Article 22(3) of the directive, which has been issued to
proceedings between Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach and                              him alone and states the proportion of the payments and
                      Hans U. Hundt-Eßwein                                       corresponding tax attributable to him, or is it sufficient
                                                                                for the spouses/co-owners to be issued with the invoice
                          (Case C-25/03)                                         without any such apportionment of the amounts due?
                          (2003/C 70/16)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof


title: Case T-341/07: Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Sison v Council

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/58

         Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Sison v Council
   (Case T-341/07)
   (2007/C 269/105)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: J. M. Sison (Utrecht, The Netherlands) (represented by: J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz, D.Gürses, W. Kaleck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Partially annul as specified hereafter, on the basis of Article 230 EC, Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC and more specifically:

               —

               annul Article 1 point 1.33 of the said decision which reads: ‘Sison, Jose Maria (a.k.a. Armando Liwanag, a.k.a. Joma, in charge of the Communist Party of the Philippines including NPA) born 8.2.1939 in Cabugao, Phippines’;

               —

               annul partially Article 1 point 2.7 of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the applicant: Communist Party of the Philippines, including New Peoples Army (NPA), Philippines, linked to Sison Jose Maria C. (a.k.a. Armando Liwanag, a.k.a. Joma, in charge of the Communist Party of the Philippines including NPA);

               —

               declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241 EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ, L 344, p. 70);

               —

               order the Community to compensate the applicant on the basis of Article 235 and 288 EC in an amount to be fixed at EUR 291 427,97 plus EUR 200,87 every month until pronouncement of the judgment of the Court, including interests from October 2002 until the payment in full;

               —

               require the Council to bear the costs of suit.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Council Decision 2007/445/EC (1), of 28 June 2007, implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC, insofar as this decision includes Professor Jose Maria Sison. In addition, the applicant seeks a declaration on the basis of Article 241 EC that Council Regulation No 2580/2001 is illegal, as well as a request for compensation, pursuant to Article 235 EC and 288 EC, for the damages allegedly incurred.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following grounds:
   The applicant claims that the Council allegedly infringed Article 253 EC with regards to its statement of reasons motivating its decision. In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment when reaching the contested decision, since the later was based on unsubstantiated facts and allegations. In addition, according to the applicant, the decision at stake violates the principle of sound administration. Moreover, the applicant submits that the decision violates Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 EC and Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and contravenes the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the decision is contrary to the freedom of circulation of capital, enshrined in Article 56 EC. Finally, the applicant alleges that the decision was taken in violation of the general principles of Community law deriving from the principle of due process, the right to an impartial Court, the principle of presumption of innocence, the rights of defense and the right to be heard, the principle of legality, the right to the freedom of expression, the right of association as well as the right of ownership, provided in the European Convention of Human Rights. Lastly, the applicant contends that the Council misused its power by including the applicant on the list annexed to the contested decision.

      (1)  OJ L 169, p. 58.

      (2)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70.


title: Case T-63/16: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — E-Control v ACER (Energy — Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity — National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity — Compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Opinion of ACER — Definition of a decision open to appeal before ACER — Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER dismissing the appeal as inadmissible — Error of law — Failure to state reasons)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2017 — E-Control v ACER
   (Case T-63/16) (1)

   ((Energy - Conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity - National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity - Compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Opinion of ACER - Definition of a decision open to appeal before ACER - Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 - Decision of the Board of Appeal of ACER dismissing the appeal as inadmissible - Error of law - Failure to state reasons))
   (2017/C 277/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: E. Tremmel, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent) and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. (established in Konstancin-Jeziorna, Poland) (represented initially by M. Motylewski and A. Kulińska, and subsequently by H. Napieła and K. Figurska, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision No A-001-2015 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 16 December 2015, dismissing an appeal against Opinion No 09/2015 of ACER of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of the decisions of national regulatory authorities approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15), including the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER);

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Austria and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A. to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Order of the Court of 31 January 2011 in Case E-13/10 — Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Refusal of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)

text:
               12.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/12

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 31 January 2011
   in Case E-13/10
   Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Refusal of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)
   2011/C 141/12
   In Case E-13/10: Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 248/10/COL of 21 June 2010 on procurement for youth care services in Norway, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave order of 31 January 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant bears the costs of the proceedings.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union OJ C 128, 24.5.2008

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/1

         Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

   (2008/C 142/01)

         OJ C 128, 24.5.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 116, 9.5.2008

      OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

      OJ C 92, 12.4.2008

      OJ C 79, 29.3.2008

      OJ C 64, 8.3.2008

      OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Action brought on 28 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic (Case C-292/98)

text:
C 299/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
         alternative, in so far as it arrives at an erroneous          Ð failure to appraise the flawed reasoning underlying
         assessment of Sarrió's misconduct regarding                       calculation of the fine and contradictions between the
         market shares and downtime,                                       grounds and the operative part,
     Ð does not consider it necessary to set aside the fine            Ð failure to appraise the error in the method of
         imposed on Sarrió, wholly or in part, by reason of                calculating the fine,
         the inadequate statement of reasons (the Decision
         itself being silent as to the criteria used to calculate
         the level of that fine),                                      Ð contradiction between the grounds and the operative
                                                                           part as regards the granted reduction in the fine.
     Ð approves the method of calculating the fine
         imposed by the Commission, the amount in ecus
         being directly based on the conversion of the
         reference year turnover into ecus at the average
         exchange rate for that year, without appraising the
         legal consequences of such a burden or the damage
         caused to Sarrió by the use of such a method,                 Action brought on 28 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities against Italian Republic
     Ð sets a figure of ECU 1,5 million as the amount of                                       (Case C-292/98)
         the reduced fine (granted by reason of Prat                                            (98/C 299/31)
         Carton's reduced role in the infringement);
2. refer the case back to the Court of First Instance if it            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
     decides that it is unable wholly or in part to give final         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     judgment in the matter;                                           28 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri
                                                                       Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
3. annul the Commission's decision to reflect its setting              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
     aside of any part of the judgment under appeal;                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
4. reduce the fine to a level which it considers                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
     reasonable;
                                                                       1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
5. order the Commission to pay all costs and fees                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
     incurred in the proceedings at first instance and in this
     appeal.                                                               (a) Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995
                                                                                amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the
                                                                                protection of animals during transport (1),
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           (b) Commission Directive 96/6/EC of 16 February
The appellant contests certain specific parts of the                            1996 amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on
judgment under appeal in which, it maintains, the Court                         undesirable substances and products in animal
of First Instance misapplied Community law and breached                         nutrition (2),
its obligation to state proper grounds.
                                                                           or, in any event, by not having communicated such
In particular, the appellant maintains that the Court of                   measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
First Instance made the following errors of assessment in                  obligations under the Treaty and under those
appraising the legal position:                                             Directives;
Ð incorrect interpretation of the Decision in relation to              2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     the infringement imputed,                                             proceedings.
Ð incorrect interpretation and misapplication of                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Community law in holding that Sarrió's participation
     in the producers' meetings had by definition an anti-
     competitive effect; in the alternative, failure to                Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive
     evaluate the significance of its non-implementation of            is binding, as to the result to be achieved, on the Member
     the agreement; in the further alternative, incorrect              State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
     characterisation of the infringement committed,                   an obligation to comply with the time limits set by
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/21
directives for their implementation. In the present case,          the European Communities was brought before the Court
when the time limits expired, the Italian Republic had not         of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July 1998
adopted the measures necessary to comply with the                  by Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others, represented by Hans
Directives named in the Commission's application.                  Hellmann, Am Morsdorfer Hof 16, D-50933 Cologne,
                                                                   and Hans-Joachim Hellmann LL.M., Schilling, Zutt &
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.                                    Anschütz, Otto-Beck Straûe 42, D-68165 Mannheim,
(2) OJ L 49, 28.2.1996, p. 29.                                     Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                   at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe, B.P.
                                                                   1107, L-1011 Luxembourg.
                                                                   The appellants claim that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de               1. declare void, in so far as it concerns the appellants, the
Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, Oviedo, by order of              Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 relating to a
that Court of 1 June 1998 in the Case of Entidad de                    proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C
Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales                   33.833 Ð Cartonboard), notified to the appellants on
      (EGEDA) v. Hostelería Asturiana, SA (HOASA)                      8 August 1994 and published in the Official Journal
                       (Case C-293/98)                                 of the European Communities of 19 September 1994;
                         (98/C 299/32)
                                                                   2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Primera Instancia e Instrucción (Court of First Instance)
No 5, Oviedo, of 1 June 1998, which was received at the            Infringement of Community law: there is no legal basis for
Court Registry on 29 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling           an order that the appellants should bear joint and several
in the Case of Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los               liability for the fine imposed on Finnboard. Article 15(2)
Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v. Hostelería                    of Council Regulation No 17 does not impose liability for
Asturiana, SA (HOASA), on the following question.                  infringements of third parties. Neither the Commission
                                                                   nor the Court of First Instance found that the appellants
Must Article 1(2)(a) and (3) of Directive 93/83/EEC (1) be         had themselves infringed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
interpreted as meaning that the reception by a hotel               The Court's view that an undertaking may be held jointly
establishment of satellite or terrestrial television signals       and severally liable for payment of a fine where the
and their retransmission by cable to the various rooms of          Commission finds in the same instrument that the
the hotel is an act of communication to the public' or            infringement could have been established also in the case
reception by the public'?                                         of that undertaking infringes the principle of nulla poena
                                                                   sine lege, or the prohibition which follows by analogy
                                                                   from that principle, and the principle of the presumption
(1) OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15.                                    of innocence; it is incompatible with the principles of the
                                                                   rule of law and contravenes the appellants' fundamental
                                                                   rights of defence.
                                                                   The Court of First Instance wrongly relies on the case-law
                                                                   of the Court of Justice on the determination of fines in
Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-Serla OYJ,                 regard to undertakings which form an economic unit.
UPM-Kymmene OYJ (formerly United Paper Mills Ltd),                 Joint and several liability cannot be derived from the
Tamrock OY (formerly Tampella Corporation) and Kyro                principles of economic unity. Moreover, the preconditions
OYJ ABP (formerly OY Kyro AB) against the judgment                 for a finding that there was economic unity do not exist.
delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber
(extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-339/94,
T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94 Metsä-Serla OYJ and
Others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                      (Case C-294/98 P)                            Action brought on 29 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the French Republic
                         (98/C 299/33)
                                                                                (Case C-296/98)
                                                                                (98/C 299/34)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in             An action against the French Republic was brought before
Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others against the Commission of               29 July 1998 by the Commission of the European


title: Cases C-9, 10, 11 and 12/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Gent by judgment of that court of 3 January 2001 in the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N.V., E. Van Ankeren against Govan Sports N.V., Govan Sports N.V. against P. Jacobs, and Govan Sports N. V. against D. D'Hondt

text:
C 61/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret               Question 5
by decision of 20 December 2000 in the case of Assur-
andør-Societet, acting on behalf of Taksatorring, v Skatte-            Does the fact that assessment services are, so far as the largest
                           ministeriet                                 insurance companies are concerned, provided by assessors
                                                                       employed by those insurance companies themselves and are
                                                                       thus exempt from VAT have any bearing on the answers to
                          (Case C-8/01)                                Questions 1 and 2?
                         (2001/C 61/16)                                (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 20 December 2000 by
the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 10 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Assurandør-Societet, acting
on behalf of Taksatorring, v Skatteministeriet on the following
questions:
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep
                                                                       te Gent by judgment of that court of 3 January 2001 in
Question 1                                                             the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N.V., E. Van
                                                                       Ankeren against Govan Sports N.V., Govan Sports N.V.
                                                                       against P. Jacobs, and Govan Sports N. V. against
Must the provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                                      D. D’Hondt
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular the                      (Cases C-9, 10, 11 and 12/01)
provision in Article 13B(a) thereof, be interpreted as meaning
that assessment services which an undertaking provides for its                                  (2001/C 61/17)
members are to be regarded as being covered by the term
‘insurance transaction’, within the meaning of that provision,
or by the term ‘related services performed by insurance brokers        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and insurance agents’?                                                 European Communities by judgments of 3 January 2001 of
                                                                       the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent), received
                                                                       at the Court Registry on 10 January 2001, for a preliminary
Question 2                                                             ruling in the cases of S. Monnier against Govan Sports N. V.
                                                                       (C-9/01), E. Van Ankeren against Govan Sports N. V.
                                                                       (C-10/01), Govan Sports N. V. against P. Jacobs (C-11/01) and
Must Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive be interpreted       Govan Sports N. V. against D. D’Hondt (C-12/01) on the
as meaning that exemption from VAT must be granted for                 following question:
services of the type which an undertaking — which otherwise
meets the conditions set out in that provision for VAT
exemption — provides for its members, in the case where it             Do the provisions of the Treaty concerning the free provision
cannot be demonstrated that the exemption will produce                 of services preclude a statutory prohibition on providing
actual or imminent distortion of competition but where there           employment procurement services for paid sportspersons
is merely a possibility that this might happen?                        (whether or not they are professionals) and/or does the holding
                                                                       of a monopoly on the provision of such services for such
                                                                       sportspersons by the Vlaamse Dienst voor Arbeidsbemiddeling
Question 3                                                             (Flemish Employment Procurement Service) constitute an
                                                                       abuse of a dominant position? Do the provisions of the Royal
                                                                       Decree of 28 November 1975 thus infringe the provisions of
Does the issue of how remote the possibility of a distortion of        Community law, and in particular Articles 86 and 90(1) of the
competition may be assumed to be, or whether the possibility           EC Treaty, in so far as that Royal Decree confers the exclusive
seems unrealistic, have any bearing on the answer to Ques-             right to procure employment for paid (professional or non-
tion 2?                                                                professional) sportspersons on a public employment agency,
                                                                       in so far as that statutory provision also renders the actual
Question 4                                                             pursuit of such activities by private employment agencies
                                                                       impossible by maintaining in force a statutory provision under
                                                                       which such activities are prohibited and non-observance of
Would it be incompatible with Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth           that provision renders the agreements concerned void, and in
VAT Directive to proceed on the basis that under national law          so far as the procurement activities concerned may extend to
it is possible to make a tax exemption that is notified pursuant       the nationals or to the territory of other Member States?
to that provision limited in time in cases where there is doubt
as to whether the exemption might at a later stage distort
competition?


title: Case T-403/09: Action brought on 7 October 2009 — Tecnoprocess v Delegation of the European Commission to Morocco and Others

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/31

         Action brought on 7 October 2009 — Tecnoprocess v Delegation of the European Commission to Morocco and Others
   (Case T-403/09)
   2009/C 297/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

      Defendants: Delegation of the European Commission to Morocco, Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Nigeria and Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Delegation to Abuja, the Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission have been unjusfiably enriched.

               —

               Consequently, order the Delegation to Abuja, the Delegation to Rabat and the European Community jointly and severally to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 114 069,94, together with interest until payment in full, or such other amount as the Court of First Instance may find to be appropriate, together with interest on that amount until payment in full.

               —

               Order that the Delegation to Abuja, the Delegation to Rabat and the European Commission be jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings, which is the same party as the applicant in Case T-264/09 Tecnoprocess v Commission and Delegation of the European Commission to the Kingdom of Morocco and in Case T-367/09 Tecnoprocess v Commission and Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Nigeria, claims that in the performance of the contracts concluded with the Moroccan and Nigerian authorities that are the subject-matter of those cases the abovementioned Delegations and the European Commission have unjustifiably refused to enter into negotiations for the settlement of a number of issues that arise in relation to the execution of the contracts in question; and that notwithstanding that the applicant has, on several occasions, proposed to the Community institutions that the gains and losses arising under those contracts should be offset.
   The result of that state of affairs is that the Delegations and the Commission have unjustifiably withheld payment of very significant sums which should have been transferred to the applicant, thereby giving rise to a situation which constitutes unjustified enrichment.


title: Case T-361/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Choice v EUIPO (Choice chocolate & ice cream) (European Union trade mark — Application for the European Union figurative mark Choice chocolate & ice cream — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive Character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2016 — Choice v EUIPO (Choice chocolate & ice cream)
   (Case T-361/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for the European Union figurative mark Choice chocolate & ice cream - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive Character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 191/37)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Choice sp. z o.o. (Legnica, Poland) (represented by: T. Mielke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2015 (Case R 2221/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Choice chocolate & ice cream as a European Union trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Choice sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 07.09.2015.


title: Case C-157/06: Action brought on  23 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/32

         Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-157/06)
   (2006/C 131/61)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declaration that, by adopting Decree No 558/A/04/03/RR of the Minister for the Interior of 11 July 2003, authorising the derogation from Community rules on public supply contracts in respect of the procurement of light helicopters for the use of police forces and the national fire service, without any of the conditions capable of justifying that derogation having been satisfied, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 2(1)(b), 6 and 9 of Directive 93/36/EEC (1);

               —

               Order requiring the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission of the European Communities brought an action on 23 March 2006 in which it seeks a declaration that, by adopting the Decree of the Minister for the Interior of 11 July 2003 authorising the derogation from Community rules on public supply contracts in respect of the procurement of light helicopters for the use of police forces and the national fire service, without any of the conditions capable of justifying such a derogation having been satisfied, the Italian Republic has failed in its obligations under Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, and in particular under Article 2(1)(b), in conjunction with Articles 6 and 9, thereof.
   The Commission became aware of the existence of the aforementioned decree of the Minister for the Interior while preparing other infringement proceedings. The Commission submits that this decree is at variance with the above directive on public supply contracts in so far as none of the conditions set out in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36/EEC which, if met, may allow that directive not to be applied — that is to say, in the case of contracts which are declared secret or the execution of which must be accompanied by special security measures, or where the protection of the basic interests of the State's security so requires — has been satisfied.

      (1)  OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 1.


title: Case C-66/04: Action brought on 16 February 2004 by the United Kingdom against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/21

         Action brought on 16 February 2004 by the United Kingdom against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-66/04)
   (2004/C 94/44)
   An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 February 2004 by the United Kingdom, represented by Rosemary Caudwell, acting as agent; Lord Goldsmith QC, Her Majesty's Attorney-General; Nicholas Paines QC; and Tim Ward, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               declare that Regulation (EC) No. 2065/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2003 on smoke flavourings used or intended for use in or on foods (1) is invalid;

               2)

               order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the United Kingdom's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The contested Regulation was adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC, which empowers the Parliament and the Council to adopt measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
   The United Kingdom does not object to the substantive content of the Regulation, but submits that Article 95 EC does not provide a proper legal basis for its adoption. The Regulation does not harmonise national law, but instead sets up a procedure at Community level for the authorisation of smoke flavourings in foods; it requires that such smoke flavourings may only be placed on the market if authorised by further Regulations to be adopted by the Commission on the basis of an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) as to their safety.
   Those provisions are at the heart of the Regulation; it does not establish any harmonised standards in national law at all, but purports to entrust the task of establishing a list of authorised smoke flavourings entirely to the Commission and the Authority.
   The United Kingdom submits that the legislative power conferred by Article 95 EC is a power to harmonise national laws; it is not a power to set up Community bodies or to confer tasks upon such bodies, nor to set up procedures under which lists of approved products are drawn up by the Commission on the basis of an evaluation by a Community agency. Conferring tasks upon Community bodies or upon the Commission is a matter outside the scope of national law, and doing so cannot be described as harmonising national law within the meaning of Article 95.
   The provisions of the Regulation therefore fall outside the power of harmonisation conferred on the Parliament and Council by Article 95 and the only appropriate legal basis for such a measure could be Article 308 EC.

      (1)  OJ L 309, 26.11.2003, p. 1 - 8


title: Case T-232/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Commission v Frieberger and Vallin (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Raising of the retirement age — Decision refusing to recalculate the bonus relating to pension rights — Principle of ne ultra petita — Error in law — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Commission v Frieberger and Vallin
   (Case T-232/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Raising of the retirement age - Decision refusing to recalculate the bonus relating to pension rights - Principle of ne ultra petita - Error in law - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 063/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Jürgen Frieberger (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Benjamin Vallin (Saint-Gilles, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (F-3/15, EU:F:2016:26), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016, Frieberger and Vallin v Commission (F-3/15);

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Jürgen Frieberger and Benjamin Vallin before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-3/15;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings;

               4.

               Orders Mr Frieberger and Mr Vallin to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, including the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case F-91/09: Action brought on 30 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/41

         Action brought on 30 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-91/09)
   2010/C 11/79
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for damage suffered as a result of a letter by which the Commission asked a doctor to carry out a medical examination in order to assess the applicant’s actual fitness for work.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision, which was in fact an implied decision, by which the Commission rejected the request of 9 September 2008;

               —

               in so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the act, in whatever form, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 16 March 2009 against the decision rejecting the request of 9 September 2008;

               —

               in so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul note ADMIN.B.2/MB/ks/D(09) 16349 of 30 June 2009;

               —

               in so far as necessary, confirm that a Commission official: (a) sent or arranged to be sent to the Direttore A.S.L. Le 2 — Maglie the note of 9 December 2003 concerning ‘Medical examination in Tricase (Le)’; (b) asked him to arrange for the applicant to have a medical examination; (c) informed him that, by reason of an extended period of illness (more than 365 days), a procedure had been initiated (Invalidity Committee) to assess whether or not the applicant was fit for work; (d) expressed to him his opinion, which was wholly unfounded, that the applicant ‘had employed numerous delaying tactics in order to stall the convening of the Invalidity Committee, all of which were rejected by the competent department of the European Commission as lacking in justification’; (e) informed him that the applicant ‘has been invited to attend a medical examination in Brussels on Monday 8 December 2003’; (f) gave him the name of the person appointed to represent the institution on the Invalidity Committee; (g) informed him that, by 9 December 2003, ‘no medical certificate ha[d] been sent by fax to the Commission’s Medical Service’; (h) expressed to him his opinion, which was wholly unfounded, that the applicant should have sent a medical certificate by fax to the Commission’s Medical Service to justify his failure to attend the medical examination which should have taken place in Brussels on 8 December 2003; (i) attached two documents to the note of 9 December 2003, the first relating to the alleged referral of the applicant’s case to the Invalidity Committee and the second summoning the applicant to attend a medical examination;

               —

               in so far as necessary, confirm and declare that each of the acts giving rise to the damage in question is unlawful, in particular as regards the cumulative effect of those acts;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant by way of compensation for the damage thereby arising the sum of EUR 300 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, with effect from the date following that on which the request of 24 September 2008 was received by the Commission until actual payment, the sum of EUR 300 000 and interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs, fees and other expenses incurred in the proceedings.


title: Case C-287/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Česká pojišťovna a.s. v WCZ, spol. s r.o.
   (Case C-287/17)
   (2017/C 269/05)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Česká pojišťovna a.s.

      Defendant: WCZ, spol. s r.o.

      Question referred

   Must Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating late payment in commercial transactions be interpreted as requiring the court to award a successful applicant in a dispute concerning the recovery of a debt under a commercial transaction defined in Article 3 or 4 of that directive the sum of EUR 40 (or the equivalent in national currency) as well as compensation for costs of the court proceedings, including compensation for costs of a reminder to the defendant before the bringing of the action, in the amount laid down by the procedural provisions of the Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.


title: Case C-74/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2015 — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare and Others

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 18 February 2015 — Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău v Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare and Others
   (Case C-74/15)
   (2015/C 171/16)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Dumitru Tarcău, Ileana Tarcău

      Respondents: Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA — Sucursala Baia Mare, Banca Comercială Intesa Sanpaolo România SA Arad, Cristian Nicolae Tarcău, Corina Tarcău, SC Magenta, in the person of the liquidator, Pareto Grup IPURL, SC Crisco SRL, in the person of the special administrator, CII Renata Moldovan, SC Crisco SRL, in the person of the special administrator, Cristian Tarcău

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), as regards the definition of ‘consumer’, be interpreted as including in or, conversely, as excluding from, that definition natural persons who have, as guarantors/sureties, concluded additional acts and contracts (guarantee contracts, contracts providing immovable property as security) ancillary to the credit agreement entered into by a commercial company in order to carry on its activity, in circumstances in which those natural persons have no connection with the activities of the commercial company and have acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession.

               2.

               Must Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that only contracts concluded between traders and consumers concerning the sale of goods or supply of services fall within the ambit of that directive or as meaning that contracts (contracts of guarantee and of surety) ancillary to a credit agreement, the beneficiary of which is a commercial company, concluded by natural persons who have no connection with the activities of that commercial company and who acted for purposes outside their trade, business or profession also fall within the ambit of that directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case F-100/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Petrilli v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/52

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — Petrilli v Commission
   (Case F-100/08)
   (2009/C 55/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Petrilli (Grottammare, Italy) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez, J. Lodomez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision on the fixing of the applicant's main residence.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 16 September 2008 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the fixing of the applicant's main residence in Italy;

               —

               So far as is necessary, annul any decision which the Commission might make relating to the procedure following the complaint, brought by the applicant after the communication of new evidence;

               —

               order the Commission to pay, on the sums due in respect of the retroactive application of the correction coefficient for Italy on the applicant's pension from 1 July 2007, interest on the basis of the rate set by the ECB for its principal refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, increased by two points;

               —

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


title: Case F-21/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/20

         Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-21/07)
   (2007/C 223/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the implied decision (‘the contested decision’) rejecting the application of 30 December 2005 submitted by the applicant on 17 January 2006;

               —

               annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 15 November 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the compensation requested in the application of 30 December 2005, namely the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the additional sum of EUR 50 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the damage suffered after the date of the said application;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, to be compounded annually from the date of the application of 30 December 2005 until actual payment and, more generally, until the notes complained of have been completely destroyed, or at the rate to be compounded and from the starting date which the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, on the sum of EUR 100 000 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable;

               —

               order the defendant to destroy, without any further delay, the originals and all copies of the note of 20 February 2001, prot. 951883, the note of 15 November 2006 and, lastly, if it exists, the letter of 20 July 2006 to which the defendant refers in the note dated 15 November 2006;

               —

               order the defendants to notify the applicant when physical destruction has taken place, specifying in accordance with formal requirements, in respect of each document destroyed, the place in which it was located prior to destruction and all the facts relating to the time, place and act of physical destruction, in particular the date, place and person carrying out the same;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, for each day's delay in destroying the documents, from the date of the judgment to be delivered until the applicant has actually been that notified that physical destruction has taken place, payable on the first day of each month in relation to rights accrued in that respect in the preceding month;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present case arises out of a number of statements contained in several notes attributable to the defendant, from which, according to the applicant, unlawful acts, deeds and conduct in relation to the processing of sensitive information concerning the applicant may be inferred.
   In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law:

               (1)

               failure to state reasons in so far as, on the one hand, the applicant's application was rejected only by implication and, on the other, the reasons provided by the defendant in the note of 15 November are inconsistent, illogical and in the nature of a pretext;

               (2)

               infringement of the law, since the applicant satisfies the conditions for entitlement to compensation for damage sought in his application of 30 December 2005, namely: unlawful acts, deeds and conduct on the part of the defendant; the occurrence of damage to the applicant; a causal connection between the damage alleged and the conduct complained of;

               (3)

               breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration, given that the defendant failed to have due regard to the applicant's interests and did several acts and related deeds which, as a result of their grave unlawfulness and the considerable period of time during which they were committed, constituted a breach of that obligation and principle.


title: Case C-279/04: Order of the President of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  15 December 2005  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Hørsholm) — Anklagemyndighedden v Steffen Ryborg

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Order of the President of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2005 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Hørsholm) — Anklagemyndighedden v Steffen Ryborg
   (Case C-279/04) (1)

   (2006/C 143/56)

      Language of the case: Danish

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

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.19.2004.


title: Case T-132/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/37

         Action brought on 23 March 2016 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)
   (Case T-132/16)
   (2016/C 191/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PayPal, Inc. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘VENMO’ — EU trade mark No 9 509 357

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 2974/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceeding be borne by EUIPO and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-211/07 R: Order of 14 September 2007 of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures — AWWW v Eurofound (Public procurement — Community tender procedure — Procedure for interim relief — Lack of urgency)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/28

         Order of 14 September 2007 of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures — AWWW v Eurofound
   (Case T-211/07 R)
   (Public procurement - Community tender procedure - Procedure for interim relief - Lack of urgency)
   (2007/C 283/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: B. Schreier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (represented by: C. Callanan, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of the decision of Eurofound concerning contract No 2007/S 13-014125 entitled ‘Information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level’, until the Court of First Instance has given judgment in the main action.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-184/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Assessment of the risk of financial loss to the EAGGF — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-184/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Assessment of the risk of financial loss to the EAGGF - Principle of proportionality)
   2011/C 145/42
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, E. Leftheriotou and V. Karra, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and A. Markoulli, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-386/01: Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
10.11.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 317/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
The Commission submits that the provisions of Articles 5(c)                    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply equally to live or dead                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
birds and to readily recognisable parts or derivatives of birds                Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of
and to their eggs which a person keeps on the territory of the                 the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
legislating Member State and which have been killed, captured                  87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
or otherwise acquired, or of which that person has obtained                    lations and administrative provisions of the Member
possession by any other means in a Member State other than                     States concerning consumer credit (1), or, in any event, by
the legislating Member State, subject to Articles 1 and 9 as                   failing to communicate such provisions to the Com-
regards the prohibition on keeping refered to in Article 5(c)                  mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
and (e), and subject to Article 6(2) as regards the acts referred              obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
to in Article 6(1) of the directive. Consequently, Articles 5(c)         2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
and (e) and 6(1) of the directive apply to species and subspecies
of birds naturally occurring in the wild state in the European
territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies,              Pleas in law and main arguments
even though not naturally occurring in the wild state in
Belgium, and also to subspecies of birds naturally occurring in          According to Article 2(1) of the directive, the Kingdom of
the wild state only outside the European territory of the                Spain was to have brought into force the provisions necessary
Member States where the species to which they belong or                  to comply with it no later than 21 April 2001 and inform the
other subspecies of that species occur naturally in the wild             Commission immediately thereof.
state in the territory in question.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17.
The period for transposing the directive expired on 16 April
1981.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 Removal from the register of Case C-412/00 (1)
    vation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1).
                                                                                (2001/C 317/44)
                                                                         By order of the President of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-412/00: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission                       (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                          (Case C-386/01)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-414/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/45)
                          (2001/C 317/43)
                                                                         By order of 10 September 2001 the President of the Fourth
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 Octo-              has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-414/00:
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese
represented by I. Martı́nez del Peral, acting as Agent, with an          Republic.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of L. Escobar,
Wagner Centre C 254.                                                     (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.


title: Case C-284/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark v Burda GmbH, formerly Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH (Tax legislation — Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/CEE — Corporation tax — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Company with a share capital — Distribution of revenue and of increases in share capital — Withholding tax — Tax credit — Treatment of resident shareholders and non-resident shareholders)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark v Burda GmbH, formerly Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH
   (Case C-284/06) (1)

   (Tax legislation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/CEE - Corporation tax - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Company with a share capital - Distribution of revenue and of increases in share capital - Withholding tax - Tax credit - Treatment of resident shareholders and non-resident shareholders)
   (2008/C 209/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark

      Defendant: Burda GmbH, formerly Burda Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6), now Article 5 in the version as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003 amending Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2004 L 7, p. 41) — Concept of withholding tax — National law providing that, where profits are distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, income and asset increases of the capital company are to be taxed, even though they would not be taxed if they remained with the subsidiary — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC — National law providing for set-off arrangements for the distribution of profits by a capital company using its own capital, resulting in taxation even where dividends are distributed to non-resident shareholders which are unable to set off the corporation tax against their own tax liability
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A provision of national law which, in relation to cases where profits are distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company, provides for the taxation of income and asset increases of the subsidiary which would not have been taxed if they had remained with the subsidiary and had not been distributed to the parent company does not constitute withholding tax within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States.

               2.

               Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) must be interpreted as not precluding the application of a national measure, such as Paragraph 28(4) of the Law on Corporation Tax 1996 (Körperschaftsteuergesetz 1996), in the version applicable to the facts of the main proceedings, under which the taxation of profits distributed by a subsidiary resident in a Member State to its parent company is subject to the same corrective mechanism regardless of whether the parent company is resident in the same Member State or in another Member State even though — unlike a resident parent company — a non-resident parent company is not granted a tax credit by the Member State in which the subsidiary is resident.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Efetio (Administrative Court of Appeal), Athens, by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the case of Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilectrismou (DEI) v. E. Evrenopoulos (Case C-147/95)

text:
No C 189/ 10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 7 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      6 . If the answer to questions 3 and 5 is in the affirmative, is
                                                                             a widower who does not receive a pension and other
— Time limit for instituting proceedings : the Court of First                survivor's benefits on the basis of that provision (Article
    Instance departed from Community law by finding that,                    9 ( 1 ) ( a) ofLaw No 4491/1966 ) entitled toapension and
    notwithstanding the fact that a decision was notified to                 survivor's benefits under the same conditions as those
    the applicants, the time limit for instituting proceedings               laid down for widows ?
    provided for in Article 173 of the Treaty had begun to
    run for the applicants only from the moment when they
    had '. . . sufficient knowledge of the reasons for the
    Commission's decision'.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova — Sezione prima civile — by order of that court of
— Infringement of Community law: the Commission                          30 March 1995 in the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v.
    considers that the obligation arising from Article 6 of                               Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
    Regulation (EEC ) No 2950/83 i 1 ) must be interpreted in
    the specific context of the many and necessarily close                                         (Case C-148/95 )
    contacts between the Commission and the Portuguese                                               ( 95/C 189/18 )
    authorities .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Cour^ of Justice of the
(M OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova, Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genova, First
                                                                         Civil Section ) of 30 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v . Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                         dello Stato ( State Finance Minister ) on the same questions as
                                                                         in Case C-92/95 ( M.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Efetio
( Administrative Court of Appeal), Athens, by a decision of              (M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
that court of 30 March 1995 in the case of Dimosia
       Epicheirisi Ilectrismou ( DEI) v. E. Evrenopoulos
                            ( Case C-147/95 )
                              ( 95/C 189/17                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) by judgment of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   that court of 20 April 1995 in the case of Michel Macon,
European Communities by a decision of the Administrative                 Monique Macon, Philippe Macon, Jacqueline Sauvrezy
Court of Appeal, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which was                    and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of the Aisne
received at the Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a                                                  Department
preliminary ruling in the case of Dimosia Epicheirisi                                              ( Case C-152/95 )
Ilectrismou ( DEI ) ( Public Electricity Company ) v . E.                                            ( 95/C 189/19
Evrenopoulos on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1 . Is the DEI insurance scheme as described in paragraph 2              European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
     of the decision an occupational or a statutory                      Administratif (Administrative Court ), Amiens ( Second
     scheme ?                                                            Chamber) of 20 April 1995, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a preliminarty ruling in the
2 . Does Article 1 19 of the EC Treaty or Directive 79/7/EEC             case of Michel Macon, Monique Macon, Philippe Macon,
     apply to the scheme, in particular to the survivors '               Jacqueline Sauvrezy and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of
     benefits for which it provides ?                                    the Aisne Department on the question set out below.
3 . Is Article 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Greek Law No 4491 / 1966 contrary        The Tribunal Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) asks
     to Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?                                   the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following
                                                                         question :
4 . Is its maintenance in force permitted by any other
     Community provision ?                                               Must Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1637/91 of
                                                                         13 June 1991 fixing compensation with regard to the
5 . Does Article 119 of the EC Treaty apply to the case in               reduction of the reference quantities referred to in Article 5c
     point in the light of Protocol 2 to the EEC Treaty and the          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 and compensation for
     fact that the respondent brought his original action                the definitive discontinuation of milk production i 1 ) be
     before 17 May 1990, that is to say on 12 June 1989 , but            interpreted as precluding the grant of compensation for
     that action was, however, dismissed by Decision                     definitive discontinuation of milk production to a farmer
     No 8361 / 1990 of the Administrative Court of First                 who, while not producing milk, none the less at the time the
     Instance , Athens, because no objection had been lodged             application is made possesses milk reference quantities, by
     ( quasi-judicial action) against the decision of the                virtue of direct sales in particular ?
     Director of the Staff Insurance, and in the decision a time
                                                                         (!) OJ No L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 30 .
     limit of three months was allowed for lodging such an
     objection ?


title: Case T-431/11: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Iberdrola v Commission

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/29

         Order of the General Court of 5 June 2012 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-431/11) (1)

   2012/C 217/61
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.