title: Case T-211/10: Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (ID SOLUTIONS)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/21

         Action brought on 3 May 2010 — Strålfors Aktiebolag v OHMI (ID SOLUTIONS)
   (Case T-211/10)
   2010/C 195/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 January 2010 in case R 1111/2009-2;

               —

               Approve for registration the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for ‘labels and boxes made from paper and cardboard (not for identification of individuals); bookbinding material; adhesives for stationery or household purposes, artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’ in class 16; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 8235202

      Decision of the examiner: Partially refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the Community trade mark application No 8235202 ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ should be allowed for registration for goods in class 16 because ‘ID SOLUTIONS’ is distinctive for these goods and thus meets with the requirements according to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-472/08: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Companhia Muller de Bebidas v OHIM — Missiato Industria e Comercio (61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark 61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA — Earlier national word mark CACHAÇA 51 and earlier national figurative marks Cachaça 51 and Pirassununga 51 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2010 — Companhia Muller de Bebidas v OHIM — Missiato Industria e Comercio (61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA)
      (Case T-472/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark 61 A NOSSA ALEGRIA - Earlier national word mark CACHAÇA 51 and earlier national figurative marks Cachaça 51 and Pirassununga 51 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 288/68)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Companhia Muller de Bebidas (represented by: G. Da Cunha Ferreira and I. Bairrão, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Missiato Industria e Comercio Ltda (Santa Rita Do Passa Quatro, Brazil)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2008 (Case R 1687/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Companhia Muller de Bebidas and Missiato Industria e Comercio Ltda

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 July 2008 (Case R 1687/2007-1).

                  2.

                  Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


C 79/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Removal from the register of Case T-317/97 to T-508/97 (1)
The applicant, who has been found guilty of a criminal offence                                    (2000/C 79/88)
by the courts, contests the disciplinary measure of removal
from post ordered against him or her by the appointing
authority.                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In support of his or her arguments, the applicant claims that:            By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— the general principles applicable to disciplinary procedures            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
    and, specifically, to the rights of the defence were infringed.       Case T-317/97 to T-508/97: David Manuel Abreu and Others
    The applicant takes the view in his respect that the decision         v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
    in question emanates specifically from the Director General           European Communities.
    for Personnel and the Administration who, as such, had
    initiated the disciplinary procedure and drawn up the
    report for the Disciplinary Board, despite forming part of            (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
    the Disciplinary Committee himself. It is contrary to the
    abovementioned principles that a single body should
    combine the duties of a judge, set proceedings in motion
    and carry out the inquiry preceding the hearing. Moreover,
    throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s
    request that they be made public was systematically
    refused.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-125/98 (1)
— the decision ordering the disciplinary measure was arbi-
    trary in nature or, at least contained a manifest error of                                    (2000/C 79/89)
    assessment inasmuch as, since it considered the conduct of
    which the applicant stood accused to have been proved,
    the Disciplinary Board, and subsequently the appointing                                  (Language of the case: French)
    authority, restricted themselves to referring to the judg-
    ment made by the Belgian criminal courts, whereas it is for
    the disciplinary authorities to verify for themselves whether         By order of 7 December 1999, the President of the Fifth
    the conduct with which the applicant is charged is proven.            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
— the Disciplinary Board was not properly constituted since               Case T-125/98: Luc Veron v Commission of the European
    some of the members called upon to participate in the                 Communities.
    appointing authority’s opinion had not been able to take
    an active part in all the debates.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case T-96/96 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-189/98 (1)
                          (2000/C 79/87)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/90)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 31 January 2000, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-96/96: Telecom Italia SpA (anc. Società Finanziaria                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Telefonica per Azioni) v Commission of the European Com-                  Case T-189/98: Commune de Sassuolo v Commission of the
munities.                                                                 European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case T-61/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — 1&1 Internet v OHIM — Unoe Bank (1e1) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark 1e1 — Earlier national word mark UNO E and earlier figurative mark unoe — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — 1&1 Internet v OHIM — Unoe Bank (1e1)
   (Case T-61/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark 1e1 - Earlier national word mark UNO E and earlier figurative mark unoe - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 136/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1&1 Internet AG (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: G. Klopp, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Unoe Bank, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 (Case R 101/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Unoe Bank, SA and 1&1 Internet AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 (Case R 101/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Unoe Bank, SA and 1&1 Internet AG;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by 1&1 Internet AG;

               3.

               Orders Unoe Bank, SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case C-102/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 2 March 2015 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 2 March 2015 — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich
   (Case C-102/15)
   (2015/C 171/22)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

      Defendant: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich

      Question referred

   Does the concept of a claim in matters relating to quasi-delict under Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 [on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters] cover a claim which has its origin in the reimbursement of a fine imposed in competition proceedings and paid by a party domiciled in another Member State — the reimbursement to whom was subsequently held to be unjustified — which the competition authority makes against that party in order to obtain the return of interest which must legally be paid on reimbursement and which was paid by the authority concerned?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-204/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1)(a) — Montreal Convention — Article 33(1) — Air transport — Passenger claims for compensation against airlines in the case of flight cancellation — Place of performance of the service — Jurisdiction in the case of air transport from one Member State to another Member State by an airline established in a third Member State)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation
   (Case C-204/08) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1)(a) - Montreal Convention - Article 33(1) - Air transport - Passenger claims for compensation against airlines in the case of flight cancellation - Place of performance of the service - Jurisdiction in the case of air transport from one Member State to another Member State by an airline established in a third Member State)
   2009/C 205/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Rehder

      Defendant: Air Baltic Corporation

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Compensation under Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 claimed by a passenger residing in a Member State from an air carrier established in another Member State following cancellation of a flight between the first Member State and a third member State — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the passenger resides — Determination of ‘the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of air transport of passengers from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with only one airline, which is the operating carrier, the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for compensation founded on that transport contract and on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, is that, at the applicant’s choice, which has territorial jurisdiction over the place of departure or place of arrival of the aircraft, as those places are agreed in that contract.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Joined Cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/52

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Admissibility)
   (2008/C 209/92)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità (Venice, Italy); Codess Sociale Cooperativa sociale Soc. Coop. and Others. (Venice, Italy) (represented by: F.G. Gaiulli and I. Gianniotti, lawyers); and Metropolitan Srl e Comitato 'Venezia Vuole Vivere' (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A Bianchini. lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and V. Di Bucci, agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ L 150, p. 50).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R, while themselves all remaining joined, are separated from the other cases referred to in the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008.

               2.

               The applications for interim measures are rejected.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-219/09: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2009 — Balfe and Others v Parliament

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/48

         Order of the General Court of 18 December 2009 — Balfe and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-219/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/86

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed in part from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-191/00: Action brought on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edlinger against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/17
European Communities on 21 July 2000 by the Regione                     Action brought on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edlinger
Siciliana, represented by Francesca Quadri, lawyer, with an               against the Commission of the European Communities
address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,
5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                (Case T-191/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2000/C 285/31)
—      annul the decision of the Commission of the European
       Communities of 22 December 1999;                                                    (Language of the case: German)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edling-
                                                                        er, of Vienna, represented by Dr Friedrich Fritsch, Rechtsan-
                                                                        walt, Vienna.
Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision of 22 December 1999 on the State aid scheme                    —     declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
implemented by Italy for the production, processing and                       ties has unlawfully omitted to take any steps, in response
marketing of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty, in so               to his letters of 6 April and 22 May 2000 requesting the
far as it declares the aid granted pursuant to Article 6 of                   same, with a view to having the illegal measures against
Sicilian Regional Law No 68 of 27 September 1995 in favour                    Austria lifted.
of undertakings operating in the agriculture and fisheries
sectors to be incompatible with the common market and
requires Italy to withdraw the aid in question.                         Pleas in law and main arguments
That Law reproduces, in essence, the scheme set up by Regional          The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He states that, following
Law No 32 of 23 May 1991 on intervention in the agricultural            his arrival at Brussels airport on 9 March 2000, a taxi driver
sector. Article 48 of Regional Law No 32/91 provided for the            refused to drive him into the city centre. That refusal was
grant, during the three-year period from 1991 to 1993, of               attributable to the measures which the Portuguese Presidency
assistance with regard to the interest payable to credit insti-         had communicated to the Austrian Government in a statement
tutions and undertakings on operating loans granted for a               dated 31 January 2000 made on behalf of 14 Member States.
term not exceeding one year to traders established and carrying         The applicant maintains that those measures are contrary to
on business in Sicily at least 70 % of whose turnover was               Community law. He claims that the Commission, as the
accounted for by the sale of fruit and vegetables, including            guardian of the Treaties, was under an obligation to adopt
citrus fruits, outside the territory of the Region. Upon being          decisions in order to have those measures lifted. It unlawfully
notified of that measure, the Commission raised no objection            failed to do so.
to it.
In support of its claims, the applicant Region asserts, as its
principal plea, the existence in the present case of a misuse of
powers, infringement of Article 88(1) of the Treaty and
infringement of Article 253 of the Treaty by reason of the
absence of a proper statement of reasons, as well as violation          Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations                      Campos against European Parliament
and of legal certainty. It points out in that regard that Article
6 of the 1995 Law is substantially the same as Article 48 of
the 1991 Law. According to the applicant, once a general aid                                     (Case T-194/00)
scheme has been approved, the Commission should not
undertake an examination of the individual elements of such                                      (2000/C 285/32)
aid. Consequently, in setting out the reasons for which
Article 6 of Law No 68/95 was to be regarded as a new aid
scheme, the Commission totally failed to consider the actual
scope of the provision, arriving at assessments which differed                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
from and contradicted its previous decision approving the aid.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                        Campos, residing in Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho
                                                                        Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.


title: Case T-146/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Legal certainty — Ceiling of 10 % — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin v Commission
   (Case T-146/09) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Legal certainty - Ceiling of 10 % - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2013/C 189/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Parker ITR Srl (Veniano, Italy) and Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Mayfield Heights, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Amory, F. Marchini Càmia, and F. Amato, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by N. Khan, V. Bottka and S. Noë, and subsequently by V. Bottka, S. Noë and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses), in so far as that decision concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for annulment or a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on them in that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(i) of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses), in so far as in that decision the European Commission found that Parker ITR Srl had participated in the infringement in respect of the period before 1 January 2002;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(e) of Decision C(2009) 428 final;

               3.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Parker ITR at EUR 6 400 000, of which Parker-Hannifin Corp. is jointly and severally liable for EUR 6 300 000;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio, Exinos (Greece) by order of that court of 24 July 1995 in the case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE against Athanasias Simou and others (Case C-324/96)

text:
No C 354/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23 . 11 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio,                      liable in the final analysis to repay the reduction and
Exinos ( Greece ) by order of that court of 24 July 1995 in the              premium ?
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
             against Athanasias Simou and others                     (')   OJ No L 110 , 29 . 4 . 1988 , p . 35 .
                        ( Case C-324/96 )                            (2)   OJ, English Special Edition , 1970 ( I ), p. 206 .
                                                                     ( 5)  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 16 .
                          ( 96/C 354/38 )                            (4 )  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 17 .
                                                                     (5)   OJ No L 187, 19 . 7 . 1990 , p . 23 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               (6)   OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p . 34 .
European Communities by order of the Irinodikio [Small
Claims Court], Exinos of 24 July 1995 , received at the Court
Registry on 3 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
v. Athanasias Simou and others on the following                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal
questions :                                                          Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
                                                                     Tributário ) by judgment of that court of 10 July 1996 in the
1 . Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1 1 14/88 ( 1 ) amending        case of Fabrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 727/70 ( 2 ) valid,                                 Subdirector-Geral das Alfandegas
    inasmuch as it provides that, in the event of the                                           ( Case C-325 /96 )
    maximum guaranteed quantity for the production of
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/39 )
    leaf tobacco in the whole of the Community being
    exceeded , the intervention prices and premiums are to
    be reduced, generally and without distinction, and               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    without there being any relation between the price               European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
    reduction and whether the producer was guilty of an              Tribunal Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
    overrun in production or not ?                                   Tributário ) [ Supreme Administrative Court ( Division for
                                                                     Fiscal Matters sitting in plenary session )] of 10 July 1996 ,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October
2 . Are Regulations ( EEC ) No 1251 /89 (■') and 1252/89 ( 4 )       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de
    valid as regards the laying down of maximum                      Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against Subdirector-Geral
    guaranteed quantities for the Tsebelia tobacco variety of        das Alfandegas ( Deputy Director General of Customs ) on
    the 1989 harvest and does the application thereof                the following questions :
    infringe the general principles of the prohibition of the
    retroactive application of Community legislation , of the
    protection of the legitimate expectations of producers           1 . Should Article 28 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
    and purchasers and processors of tobacco, and the                       No 3677/86 ( 1 ) of 24 November 1986 be interpreted as
    principle of legal certainty ?                                          meaning that the six-month time-limit prescribed
                                                                            therein cannot be extended ?
3 . If the reply to the preceding question is affirmative, then
                                                                     2 . Or should that provision instead by interpreted as
    in view of the finding by the Commission of actual
                                                                            meaning that the general rule for granting extensions
    overproduction and an infringement by 44,1 % of the
                                                                            provided for in Article 27 of that Regulation and in the
    maximum guaranteed quantities of the Tsebelia and
                                                                             second subparagraph of Article 14 ( 2 ) of Council
    Mavra varieties of the 1989 harvest, and the imposition                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 1999/85 ( 2 ) of 16 July 1985 is to
    for that reason of a reduction in premium and                            be applied to the said time-limit ?
    intervention price in the abovementioned amount of
    15 % , is Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2046/90 ( 5 )
                                                                     (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of 24 November 1986
    valid and may we apply, as is contended for by the
                                                                           laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation
    applicant, clause 8 of the cultivation contracts entered               ( EEC ) No 1999/85 on inward processing relief arrangements
    into      under      Commission       Regulation     ( EEC )           ( OJ No L 351 , 12 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 ).
    No 4263/8 8 ( 6 ) ? If the prices or the premium are             ( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 20 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .
    adjusted pursuant to Article 4 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
    No 727/70, is the contract price to be adjusted in line
    with the change in the price and premiums ?
4 . Are the factors which in 1991 led the Court of Justice in
    Case C-368/89 to annul the regulation laying down                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
    maximum guaranteed quantities for the 1988 harvest of            Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of
    the Bright variety likewise present in this case in view of      14 August 1996 , in the case of Mrs B. S. Levez against T. H.
    the fact that the Commission made the same mistake in                                Jennings ( Harlow Pools ) Ltd
    delaying the determination of maximum guaranteed                                            ( Case C-326/96 )
    quantities for the 1989 harvest ?                                                             ( 96/C 354/40 )
5 . Finally, in the event that the Court of Justice should rule      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    that the regulations in question are valid, then who is          European Communities by an order of the Employment


title: Case T-504/10: Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Prima TV v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/55

         Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Prima TV v Commission
   (Case T-504/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/107
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Prima TV SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Fossati and L. Perfetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision that is contested in the present case is the same as that in Case T-501/10 TI Media Broadcasting and TI Media v Commission.
   The applicant relies on three grounds in support of its claims.
   By the first ground, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment, since the Commission found incorrectly that the conditions in the Italian pay-TV market had changed since 2003 to such an extent that it was possible to revise the commitments given by Newscorp in Case COMP/M.2876. All the evidence shows that, on the contrary, the market conditions which determined the commitments given to and accepted by the Commission in 2003 have not changed in any significant or lasting manner. In particular, Sky Italia still holds a position of absolute dominance in the Italian pay-TV market.
   By the second ground, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision, alleging infringement of legal provisions and misuse of power, including as a result of manifest error of assessment, and infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission amended the commitments given by Newscorp in Case COMP/M.2876 on the incorrect assumption that the fact that Sky Italia was not to participate in the next procedure for the allocation of terrestrial digital frequencies would preclude it from engaging in free-to-air television broadcasting in Italy. It is submitted in this connection that, on the contrary, Sky Italia is already active in free-to-air television broadcasting in Italy, broadcasts on digital terrestrial frequencies and will be able to acquire transmission capacity even if the commitments in question are not amended.
   By the third ground, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision, alleging infringement of legal provisions and manifest error of assessment, since the Commission amended the commitments given by Newscorp in Case COMP/M.2876 at the request of Sky Italia, notwithstanding the fact that the replies received during the investigation into the market which took place during the administrative procedure — including those sent by Italian public bodies — gave clear indications of the negative impact which the amendment of the commitments in question would have in terms of competition at national level.


title: Case T-359/13: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014  — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF) (Community trade mark — Registration refused in part — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/31

         Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF)
   (Case T-359/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Registration refused in part - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 212/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Spain Doce 13, SL (Crevillente, Spain) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez (Alicante, Spain) and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert (Alicante) (represented by: M. Veiga Serrano, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2013 (Case R 1046/2012-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert, on the one hand, and Spain Doce 13, on the other.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and pay one half of the defendant’s costs.

               3.

               The interveners are ordered to bear their own costs and pay one half of the defendant’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


C 184/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        2.8.2003
Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of the                  2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
             European Communities against Ireland
                           (Case C-256/03)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 184/49)                               The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2003 by the               (1) OJ L 181 of 20.07.2000, p. 65.
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Messrs Xavier Lewis and Michel van Beek, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-135/00 (1)
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                          (2003/C 184/51)
      Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating
      to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (1) Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and in        By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      particular its Article 9 and under the Treaty establishing         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      the European Community.                                            register of Case C-135/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS-Ente Nazionale per le Strade,
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Lauro Cantieri Valsesia Spa v Consorzio Cooperative Costru-
                                                                         zioni.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 9 April 2002.
(1) OJ L 94, 09.04.1999, p. 24.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-225/00 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/52)
Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of                      By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             Luxembourg                                  register of Case C-225/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): Cavalleri Ottavio SpA v ANAS —
                           (Case C-273/03)                               Ente Nazionale per le Strade, Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA.
                           (2003/C 184/50)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-243/00 (1)
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the                                        (2003/C 184/53)
Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or         By order of 7 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      tive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the              register of Case C-243/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
      Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the                 by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench
      laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Secretary of State for
      civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and        Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress.
      amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC
      (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1) and, in any event,
      failing to communicate them to the Commission, the                 (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;


title: Case C-507/07: Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/10

         Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-507/07)
   (2008/C 8/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer, Agent)

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

               —

               declare that, by failing to communicate the Community design courts to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1);

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The French Republic has not fulfilled the obligation laid down in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, under which each Member State is to communicate to the Commission not later than 6 March 2005 a list of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.


title: Case F-71/08: Action brought on 22 August 2008 — N v Parliament

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/51

         Action brought on 22 August 2008 — N v Parliament
   (Case F-71/08)
   (2008/C 272/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: N (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the staff report on the applicant for the period from 16 August 2006 to 31 December 2006.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 September 2007 confirming and definitively approving the staff report on the applicant for the period from 16 August 2006 to 31 December 2006;

               —

               annul that contested report;

               —

               annul the decision of the President of the Parliament of 22 May 2008 rejecting the applicant's claim for annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-266/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Capsugel Belgium v Commission

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/34

         Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Capsugel Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-266/16)
   (2016/C 279/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Capsugel Belgium (Bornem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s Decision C(2015)9837 final of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme implemented by Belgium (SA.37667 (2015/C));

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the contested decision;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state the reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using the State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.


title: Case C-416/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Selena România SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 — Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China — Anti-dumping duties — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 — Consignment from Taiwan — Initiation of an investigation — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 — Extension of the anti-dumping duty — Temporal scope — Principle of non-retroactivity — Community Customs Code — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/24

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Selena România SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București
   (Case C-416/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 - Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China - Anti-dumping duties - Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 - Consignment from Taiwan - Initiation of an investigation - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 - Extension of the anti-dumping duty - Temporal scope - Principle of non-retroactivity - Community Customs Code - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties))
   (2016/C 335/32)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Selena România SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 of 10 January 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of those same goods consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, is to be interpreted as meaning that the definitive anti-dumping duty extended by that provision is not applicable retroactively to goods consigned from Taiwan, released for free circulation in the Union after the date of entry into force of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 of 3 August 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China, but before that of Commission Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 of 23 May 2012 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation No 791/2011, and making such imports subject to registration. Nevertheless, the anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1(1) of Regulation No 791/2011 applies to imports of such goods, if it is established that, despite being consigned from Taiwan and declared as originating in that country, those goods in fact originate in the People’s Republic of China.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-197/94

text:
 16 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 77/ 19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          that such promotion was justified by his qualifications and
                                                                      situation, and that this has undeniably caused him to suffer
— annul the definitive staff report for the period from               material and non-material damage .
      1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 , dated 6 November 1995 ,
     which was notified to the applicant on 9 November                (') Case T-161 /95 ( OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 , p . 27 ).
      1995 ,
— award the sum of Bfr 250 000, to be increased or
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the material damage                   Removal from the register of Case T-106/92 (')
     suffered by the applicant in consequence of his having
     been denied any chance of promotion,                                                         ( 96/C 77/40 )
— award the sum of Bfr 75 000, to be increased or                                    (Language of the case: French)
     decreased as appropriate during the course of the
     proceedings, as compensation for the non-material                By order of 25 January 1996 the President of the Second
     damage suffered by the applicant,                                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
— order the Council to pay all of the costs.                          T- 106/92 : Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European Parliament.
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                      (') OJ No C 34 , 6 . 2 . 1993 .
The applicant states that he did not agree with the initial
version of his staff report for 1991 /1993 , and that this
prompted him, after he had taken certain internal steps, to
bring an action before the Court of First Instance ( 1 ). The
defendant then drew up a fresh report covering the same                     Removal from the register of Case T- 1 97/94 ( J )
period . That definitive report is contested by the applicant in                                 ( 96/C 77/41 )
the present case .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations of officials and of the guide to staff              By order of 31 January 1996 the President of the Third
reports, which provide for a periodical report to be drawn            Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
up at least once every two years; he maintains that the first         Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
report was communicated to him over 15 months late, and               from the register of Case T-197/94 : Scholler Lebensmittel
the second nearly two years late . In consequence of the              GmbH & Co . KG v. Commission of the European
delay, it was only possible, at meetings of the promotion             Communities .
committee, to assess the applicant on the basis of the report
drawn up in relation to him at the expiry of his probationary         (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
period . In his view, it may reasonably be concluded that, if
the staff report had been drawn up in good time, that would
have greatly ameliorated his professional situation .
The applicant also maintains that the procedure followed                    Removal from the register of Case T-92/95 ( ! )
was irregular, inasmuch as it is apparent from an
examination of the two reports that they were signed by the                                      ( 96/C 77/42 )
first and second assessors before being signed by the
applicant, despite the fact that the guide to staff reports                          (Language of the case: Italian)
provides for the report to be signed by the second assessor
after the official concerned has been given an opportunity of        By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Second
making comments or remarks thereon and, where                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
appropriate, of requesting a discussion or exchange of views          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
with the second assessor.                                            T-92/95 : Tiziano Boggian v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities .
Lastly, the applicant states that those irregularities have
deprived him of any chance of promotion, despite the fact             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case T-138/01: Action brought on 19 June 2001 by F against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
15.9.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/13
Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik                   Action brought on 19 June 2001 by F against the Court of
Schlüter GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motore-                           Auditors of the European Communities
n- und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edelmetal-
le GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) (State aid                                              (Case T-138/01)
No C 41/99 (EXN49/95) Germany) in so far as it affects
ZEMAG (Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte) GmbH.
                                                                                (2001/C 259/23)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By the contested decision, the Commission required Germany
to demand repayment of aid totalling DEM 34 978 million               An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and its subsidiary               Community was brought before the Court of First Instance of
companies. A total sum of DEM 6 496 271 was filed against             the European Communities on 19 June 2001 by F, domiciled
ZEMAG GmbH in the context of that company’s insolvency                in Luxembourg, represented by Patrick Goergen, Lawyer, with
proceedings. The Commission claims that the aid to the ‘Lintra        an address for service in Luxembourg.
Group’ was unlawful and used in contravention of what was
laid down by the approved restructuring plan.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Commission made its decision
on the basis of false premisses. Also, the Commission did not         —     Annul the Decision of 4 December 2000.
consider itself required to examine to what extent individual
undertakings within the group profited from the aid, liability
being assumed on grounds of convenience without any more              —     Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
searching enquiries of subsidiary companies such as ZEMAG                   ties to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 in
GmbH.                                                                       compensation for non-material damage suffered.
The applicant argues that the Commission misused its discre-          —     Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
tion. It demands the repayment of aid directly from the debtor              ties to pay the costs.
on insolvency, although the aid was not paid to the latter but
to the holding company.
The applicant further argues that the procedure under                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 88(2) EC has been partially circumvented. The contested
measure was thus in breach of discretion, since, if the
Commission had investigated the matter carefully, it would
have been better able to judge the specific situation. It would       The applicant challenges the decision to reassign her to the
then also have been able to determine specifically what amount        translation service as a principal revisor translator responsible
of aid might under certain circumstances have been actually           for unrevised Italian translations and under the direct authority
reclaimable from the applicant.                                       of head of division but not attached to the Italian section.
Irrespective of an obligation to demand repayment of the aid          In support of her action, the applicant pleads infringement of
in question, such an obligation would affect ZEMAG GmbH               procedural requirements in so far as the contested decision
only if the former company members remained members of                contains no grounds and infringement of the rights of the
the company after the second privatisation in 1997, which             defence, a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the
was not the case. Direct personal liability of members thus           principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
ceased to exist, at least after the second privatisation. Nor,        infringement of the principle of proper administration and the
finally, was there any legal basis for demanding repayment            duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant
from the subsidiary companies in accordance with a formula,           further claims misuse of power.
as laid down in the contested decision.


title: Case C-340/07: Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/29

         Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-340/07)
   (2007/C 211/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (1) or, in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2002/73/EC expired on 5 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.


title: Case C-113/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 1 March 2012 — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 1 March 2012 — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency
   (Case C-113/12)
   2012/C 151/31
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court, Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Donal Brady

      Defendant: Environmental Protection Agency

      Questions referred

   In the absence of a definitive interpretation of the meaning of ‘waste’ for the purposes of Union law, is a Member State permitted by national law to impose upon a producer of pig slurry the obligation to establish that it is not waste, or is waste to be determined by reference to objective criteria of the type referred to in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union:

               1.

               If waste is to be determined by reference to objective criteria of the type referred to in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, what level of certainty of re-use of pig slurry is required, which a licensee collects and stores or may store for upwards of 12 months, pending its transfer to users?

               2.

               If pig slurry is waste, or is determined to be waste in accordance with the application of the appropriate criteria, is it lawful for a Member State to impose upon its producer — who does not use it on his own lands, but disposes of it to third party landowners for use as fertilisers on those third parties’ lands — personal liability for compliance by those users with Union legislation concerning the control of waste and/or fertilisers, in order to ensure that the third parties’ use of that pig slurry by land spreading will not give rise to a risk of significant environmental pollution?

               3.

               Is the aforesaid pig slurry excluded from the scope of the definition of ‘waste’ by virtue of Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156 (2), by reason of its being ‘already covered by other legislation’, and in particular by Council Directive 91/676/EEC (3), in circumstances where, at the time the licence was granted, Ireland had not transposed Council Directive 91/676/EEC, no other domestic legislation controlled the application of pig slurry to land as fertiliser, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (4) had not then been adopted?

      (1)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste
   OJ L 194, p. 39

      (2)  Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste
   OJ L 78, p. 32

      (3)  Council Directive 91/676/EEC OF 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
   OJ L 375, p. 1

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption
   OJ L 273, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-291/98 P Sarrió SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, now Article 81(1) EC — Concept of single infringement — Information exchange — Order — Fine Determination of the amount — Method of calculation — Statement of reasons Mitigating circumstances)

text:
10.2.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 45/3
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;                                4.    Orders Sarrió SA to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds
                                                                                of those of the Commission of the European Communities
3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;                        before the Court of Justice;
4.    Reserves the costs.                                                   5.    Order the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                                                                                one third of its own costs before the Court of Justice.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 November 2000                                                         of 16 November 2000
                                                                            in Case C-294/98 P: Metsä-Serla Oyj and Others v Com-
in Case C-291/98 P Sarrió SA v Commission of the
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Appeal — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Joint and
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty,                                   several liability for payment of a fine)
now Article 81(1) EC — Concept of single infringement —
Information exchange — Order — Fine Determination of                                                    (2001/C 45/06)
the amount — Method of calculation — Statement of
                reasons Mitigating circumstances)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
                            (2001/C 45/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the Case: Italian)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-294/98 P, Metsä-Serla Oyj, formerly Metsä-Serla Oy,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      established in Espoo (Finland), UPM-Kymmene Oyj, formerly
                    in the European Court Reports)                          United Paper Mills Ltd, established in Helsinki (Finland),
                                                                            Tamrock Oy, formerly Tampella Corporation, established in
                                                                            Tampere (Finland), Kyro Oyj Abp, formerly Oy Kyro Ab,
In Case C-291/98 P, Sarrió SA, established in Barcelona, Spain,
                                                                            established in Tampere, represented by H. Hellmann, Rechtsan-
represented by A. Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar, M. Siragusa, of
                                                                            walt, Cologne, and H.-J. Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Mannheim,
the Rome Bar, and F. Maria Moretti, of the Venice Bar, with an
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,
                                                                            Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal against the
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill — appeal against
                                                                            judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                            14 May 1998 in Cases T-339/94 to T-342/94 Metsä-Serla and
14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94 Sarrió v Commission [1998]
                                                                            Others v Comission [1998] ECR II-1727, seeking to have that
ECR II-1439, seeking to have that judgment set aside,the other
                                                                            judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Communities, represented by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service,
                                                                            R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by
acting as Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro — the Court (Fifth
                                                                            D. Schroeder — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
                                                                            Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
                                                                            D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
                                                                            on 16 November 2000 in which it:
which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the appeal.
1.    Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94           2.    Orders Metsä-Serla Oyj, UPM-Kymmene Oyj, Tamrock Oy
      Sarrió v Commission;                                                       and Kyro Oyk Abp to pay the costs.
2.    Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Sarrió SA at
      EUR 13 750 000;                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;


title: Case T-52/07: Order of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission (Development cooperation — ECHO — EuropeAid — Exclusion of contracts and grants funded by the Community budget and by the EFD — Liquidation and discontinuance of the activity of the humanitarian organisation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/12

         Order of the General Court of 25 April 2012 — Movimondo Onlus v Commission
   (Case T-52/07) (1)

   (Development cooperation - ECHO - EuropeAid - Exclusion of contracts and grants funded by the Community budget and by the EFD - Liquidation and discontinuance of the activity of the humanitarian organisation - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 184/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Vitali, G. Verusio, G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, C. Hermes and F. Moro, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5802 final of 1 December 2006 imposing an administrative penalty on the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Movimondo Onlus — Organizzazione non governativa di cooperazione e solidarietà internazionale and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-203/05: Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioner of Income Tax, London — United Kingdom) — Vodafone 2 v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioner of Income Tax, London — United Kingdom) — Vodafone 2 v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-203/05) (1)

   (2008/C 313/32)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case T-177/15: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Grandel v OHIM — Beautyge Beauty Group (Beautygen)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/45

         Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — Grandel v OHIM — Beautyge Beauty Group (Beautygen)
   (Case T-177/15) (1)

   (2016/C 136/64)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case T-481/04: Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/30

         Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-481/04)
   (2005/C 57/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 December 2004 by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., established in New York (USA), represented by M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer.
   J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda., established in Porto (Portugal), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 27 September 2004 rendered in case R 328/2003-1;

               —

               order the defendant and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The word mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 41 (Clothing,…) — application No 183 756

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national word mark ‘VOGUE PORTUGAL’ for goods in class 25 (footwear) and the business name ‘VOGUE - SAPATARIA’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the Community trade mark for the contested goods, namely clothing

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of the procedural rules of Articles 61(1), 62(1) and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94; Violation of Articles 73 and 62 (2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as well as Rule 50(2)(h) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; Violation of Article 43(2) and 43(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation 2868/95; Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 6 December 2001 in Case T-196/99: Area Cova SA e.a. v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Conservation of marine resources — Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries — Greenland halibut — Catch quota allocated to the Community fleet)

text:
C 84/56                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
2.    For the rest, dismisses the application;                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3.    Orders Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros
      Inoxidables SA to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of                                6 December 2001
      the Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to bear one-
      third of its own costs.                                               in Case T-196/99: Area Cova SA e.a. v Council of the
                                                                            European Union and Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                            (Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability —
                                                                            Fisheries — Conservation of marine resources — Convention
                                                                            on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlan-
                                                                            tic Fisheries — Greenland halibut — Catch quota allocated
                                                                                to the Community fleet)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 84/104)
                        11 December 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
in Case T-191/99: David Petrie and Others v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
(Transparency — Public access to documents — Commission                     In Case T-196/99, Area Cova, SA, established in Vigo (Spain),
Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Proceedings for                          Armadora José Pereira, SA, established in Vigo, Armadores
failure to fulfil obligations — Formal notice — Reasoned                    Pesqueros de Aldán, SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca, SA,
opinion — Exception relating to protection of the public                    established in Vigo, Chymar, SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar,
interest — Inspections and investigations — Court proceed-                  SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar, SA, established
 ings — Authorship rule — Direct effect of Article 255 EC)                  in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan, SL, established in Moaña (Spain),
                                                                            Freiremar, SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandón, SA,
                          (2002/C 84/103)                                   established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya, SA, established in Vigo,
                                                                            Hiopesca, SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos, SA,
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        established in Vigo, Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Vigo, Manuel
                                                                            Nores González, residing in Marı́n (Spain), Moradiña, SA,
                                                                            established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras, SL, established in
                                                                            Camariñas (Spain), Nugago Pesca, SA, established in Bueu,
In Case T-191/99, David Petrie, Victoria Jane Primhak and                   Pesquera Austral, SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés, SA,
David Verzoni, residing respectively in Verona, Naples and                  established in Vigo, Pesquerı́as Bı́garo Narval, SA, established
Bologna (Italy), Associazione lettori di lingua straniera in Italia,        in Vigo, Pesquera Cı́es, SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina,
incorporating Committee for the Defence of Foreign Lecturers                SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter, SA, established in
(ALLSI/CDFL), established in Verona, represented by L. Picotti              Cangas, Pesquerı́as Marinenses, SA, established in Marı́n,
and C. Medernach, avocats, with an address for service in                   Pesquerı́as Tara, SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro,
Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities,                       SA, established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios, SA, established in Vigo,
represented by P. Stancanelli and U. Wölker, acting as Agents,              represented by A. Creus Carreras and A. Agustinoy Guilayn,
with an address for service in Luxembourg: application for the              lawyers, v Council of the European Union, represented by
annulment of the Commission decision of 20 July 1999                        R. Gosalbo Bono, J. Carbery and M. Sims, acting as Agents,
refusing access to documents relating to Infringement Pro-                  and Commission of the European Communities, represented
cedure No 96/2208 brought under Article 226 EC against the                  by T. Van Rijn and J. Guerra Fernandez, acting as Agents,
Italian Republic and concerning the situation of foreign-                   with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for
language lecturers employed in Italian universities, the Court              compensation pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),                   paragraph of Article 288 EC in respect of loss suffered by the
composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,                 applicants as a result of (1) the acceptance by the Commission
V. Tiili, R.M. Moura Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar:               and the Council of a total allowable catch for 1995 of
J. Palacio González, Administrator, has given a judgment on                27 000 tonnes of Greenland halibut in the Regulatory Area
11 December 2001, in which it has ruled:                                    defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation
                                                                            in the North West Atlantic Fisheries and (2) the conclusion of
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                 a bilateral agreement between the Community and Canada
                                                                            and the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1761/95 of
2.    Orders the applicants to pay the defendant’s costs in addition        29 June 1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation (EC)
      to their own costs.                                                   No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation and
                                                                            management measures for fishery resources in the Regulatory
                                                                            Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.                                                 Cooperation in the North-west Atlantic Fisheries (OJ 1995
                                                                            L 171, p. 1) establishing, with effect from 16 April 1995, a
                                                                            quota of 5 013 tonnes of Greenland halibut for Community
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/57
vessels, the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-             2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one
ties (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Le-                  half of the applicant’s costs.
naerts and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio González,
Administrator, has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in
which it:                                                                 (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                11 December 2001
                                                                          in Case T-138/00: Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          (Community trade mark — ‘DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEM-
                       of 4 December 2001                                 LICHKEIT’ — Absolute grounds for refusal —
                                                                               Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
in Case T-125/00: Joaquı́n López Madruga v Commission
                                                                                (2002/C 84/106)
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Officials — Transfer of part of remuneration in the
currency of a Member State other than that of the country
in which the institution has its seat — Article 17(2)(a) and
(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined
                             application)                                 In Case T-138/00, Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH, established in
                                                                          Ertingen (Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Camp-
                                                                          en, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                          (2002/C 84/105)                                 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                          and Designs) (OHIM), represented by F. López de Rego and
                                                                          G. Schneider, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Luxembourg: action brought against the decision of the Third
                                                                          Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 March 2000
                                                                          (Case R 392/1999-3) concerning the registration of ‘DAS
                                                                          PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT’ as a Community trade
In Case T-125/00: Joaquı́n López Madruga, an official of                 mark, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos,
Brussels, represented by J.R. Iturriagagoitia, lawyer, with an            Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio González, Administrator, has given
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    a judgment on 11 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, J. Rivas Andres and
J.J. Guttierrez Gisbert) — application for partial annulment of
the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s request of              1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
12 October 1999 for the transfer of part of his remuneration                    for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
under Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — the                    Designs) of 23 March 2000 (Case R 392/1999-3);
Court of First Instance (Single Judge: A.W.H. Meij); H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December 2001, in
                                                                          2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
which it:
                                                                                applicant.
1.     Annuls the implicit decision of the Commission of 23 March
       2000 in so far as it limits to 19 % of the applicant’s net         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       monthly remuneration the amount which he may transfer
       pursuant to Article 17(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff
       Regulations;


title: Case F-46/14: Action brought on 20 May 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/47

         Action brought on 20 May 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-46/14)
   2014/C 212/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 8 November 2013 calculating the bonus to his pension rights acquired before his entry into service in the Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2004 in Case T-9/03, Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna and CIA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment and compensation — Decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Actions brought by representatives of potential beneficiaries of that scheme — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/40

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 2 July 2004
   in Case T-9/03, Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna and CIA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Action for annulment and compensation - Decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Actions brought by representatives of potential beneficiaries of that scheme - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 228/92)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-9/03, COLDIRETTI — Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna, established in Cagliari (Italy) — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna, established in Cagliari (Italy), represented by G. Dore and F. Ciulli, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg), application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision No 2002/785/EC of 7 May 2002 on the aid Italy is planning to grant under Article 21 of Region of Sardinia Law No 21/2000 to agricultural holdings using fuel other than methane, and, in the alternative, application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as the result of that decision, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood, I. Pelikánová and S.S. Papasavvas, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 2 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.