title: Case T-443/03: Action brought on 31 December 2003 by Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León S.A., Euskaltel S.A., Telecable de Asturias S.A., R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia S.A. and Tenaria S.A.

text:
C 59/32                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
2.    order the defendant to pay interest at the statutory rate          Action brought on 31 December 2003 by Retecal Socie-
      of 8 % on all amounts due;                                         dad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León
                                                                         S.A., Euskaltel S.A., Telecable de Asturias S.A., R Cable y
                                                                              Telecomunicaciones Galicia S.A. and Tenaria S.A.
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-443/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicants claim to have suffered damage as a result of
Regulation No 2362/98 (1) in so far as bananas from Ecuador
do not qualify for the quota provided for in respect of                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
traditional ACP bananas and as a result of the ‘country                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
allocation’ system.                                                      European Communities on 31 December 2003 by Retecal
                                                                         Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y
                                                                         León S.A., established in Valladolid (Spain), Euskaltel S.A.,
                                                                         established in Zamudio, (Bizkaia, Spain), Telecable de Asturias,
                                                                         established in Oviedo (Spain), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
The applicants submit that, despite the Community’s express              Galicia S.A., established in La Coruña (Spain) and Tenaria S.A.,
intention to comply with the GATS and GATT 1994 Agree-                   established in Cordovilla (Navarra, Spain), represented by José
ments from 1 January 1999, as determined and ordered by the              Maria Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.
WTO dispute-resolution bodies, there has been a sufficiently
serious breach of superior rules of law as a result of Regulation
No 2362/98 and Regulation No 1637/98 (2). According to the
applicants, the amendments made by those regulations, which              The applicants claim that the Court should:
were enforced up to the end of 2001, infringe the GATS and
GATT Agreements, Community law, the principle of the                     —     annul the decision of 21 October 2003; and
protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of good
faith, international customary law as codified in the Vienna
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from
Convention on the Law of Treaties and are at variance with
                                                                               the proceedings.
the binding effect of the outcome of a dispute resolution
procedure which has been incorporated in an international
agreement concluded by the Community.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants also allege infringement of the principle of
equal treatment and submit that the Commission exceeded its              The present action is brought against the decision of the
powers of implementation by enforcing, up to the end                     Commission to take no further action on the complaint
of 2001, Regulation No 2362/98 containing rules on the                   submitted by the applicants relating to the alleged failure by
implementation of Regulation No 404/93 which are contrary                the Kingdom of Spain to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(8)
to the GATS and GATT 1994 Agreements. Finally, the                       of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
applicants allege infringement of the protection of legitimate           1989 (1) on the control of concentrations between undertak-
expectations and of the general legal principle of ‘patere legem         ings, with respect to the merger between VIA DIGITAL Y
quam ipse fecisti’ as a result of the failure to grant import            SOGECABLE (Case No COMP/M.2845 Sogecable/Canal Satél-
licences to the actual importer as declared to the Council.              ite Digital/Vía Digital) and conditions applied to that merger
                                                                         by the Spanish authorities. The applicants submit that that
                                                                         article lays down an obligation to carry out investigation and
                                                                         verification, which, in the present case, the Commission has
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998             failed to fulfil.
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending          The applicants recall that on 22 April 2003, they sent a letter
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the         to the Commission in which they submitted, essentially, that
    market in bananas (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28).                            the conditions adopted by the Spanish authorities were not
                                                                         capable of maintaining effective competition in the sector
                                                                         concerned, in that they ensured that SOGECABLE would
                                                                         remain in a monopoly situation, given what was stated by the
                                                                         Commission in the referral decision.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 59/33
In support of their claims the applicants submit that the                       as it refused the application for registration of VELOCITY
Commission, having only limited discretion, was obliged, in                     as a trade mark on the basis of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of
accordance with the principle of sound administration, to deal                  the CTMR;
diligently and impartially with the complaint in this case. They
argue that in that respect, that the Commission’s discretion in           —     order the Office to bear its own costs and pay those of
the matter at issue must correspond to the objective of                         the Applicant.
establishing a scheme which ensures that competition is not
distorted in the common market, so that the Member States
do not adopt, in favour of one undertaking, measures which
may give rise to the elimination or restriction of effective
competition in the market at issue.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Trade mark concerned:           Verbal trade mark ‘VELOCITY’ —
This application also takes account of the fact that the                                                  Application No 1661842.
Commission itself has assessed the conditions of competition
in the referral decision, so as to include all the criteria which         Products or services:           Products and services in classes 9,
may be used for the purpose of determining whether the                                                    16, 37 and 42.
measures adopted maintain or preserve competition in the
markets at issue, and also that it has accepted commitments
                                                                          Challenged        Decision      Refusal of registration by the
which are substantially different in another current and very
                                                                          before the Board of             examiner.
similar case (M.2876 Newscorp/telepiú), and that therefore it
                                                                          Appeal:
cannot be claimed that the measures adopted by the Spanish
Government maintain or preserve competition in the markets
concerned.                                                                Pleas in law:                   Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)
                                                                                and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
(1) OJ L 395 of 30.12.89, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Simonds Farsons
                                                                          Cisk Plc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                              Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Electronics for
Imaging, Inc., against Office for Harmonisation in the                                               (Case T-3/04)
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/53)
                          (Case T-1/04)
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of
                         (2004/C 59/52)                                   the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:
                                                                                English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            7 January 2004 by Simonds Farsons Cisk Plc., Mriehel, Malta,
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                represented by Ms M. Bagnall and Mr I. Wood, Solictors and
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Mr R. Hacon, Barrister. SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière
2 January 2004 by Electronics for Imaging, Inc., Foster City,             de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monopole NV., was also a party to
California, USA, represented by Mr S. Malynicz, Barrister.                the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated              —     annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      25 August 2003, case number R 0793/2002-4 in so far                       4 November 2003;


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Removal from the register of Case C-43/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/98)
   By order of 6 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-43/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: Case T-424/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Gaumina v EIGE (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of services to support the communication activities of the EIGE — Rejection of a tender — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Gaumina v EIGE
   (Case T-424/12) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services to support the communication activities of the EIGE - Rejection of a tender - Obligation to state reasons)
   2014/C 15/21
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gaumina UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: S. Aviža and D. Soloveičikas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (represented by: V. Langbakk, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the EIGE of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of the applicant in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13;

               2.

               Orders the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gaumina.

      (1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.


title: Case F-91/15: Action brought on 19 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/46

         Action brought on 19 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-91/15)
   (2015/C 406/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to apply the medical reservation clause in Article 32 of the CEOS, in so far as it does not give the applicant the invalidity allowance and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Commission of 16 September 2014 applying the medical reservation in Article 32 of the CEOS to the applicant and refusing to give him the invalidity allowance;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 50  000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered and to pay the costs.


title: Case T-69/04: Actionbrought on 20 February 2004 by Schunk GmbH andSchunk Kohlenstofftechnik GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/71

         Action brought on 20 February 2004 by Schunk GmbH and Schunk Kohlenstofftechnik GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-69/04)
   (2004/C 106/143)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 February 2004 by Schunk GmbH, Thale (Germany), and Schunk Kohlenstofftechnik GmbH, Heuchelheim (Germany), represented by Rainer Bechtold and Simon Hirsbrunner, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Commission of 3 December 2003 (Case COMP/E-2/38.359 — carbon and graphite-based products for electrical and mechanical applications);

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the applicants a fine in the sum of EUR 30 870 000 for infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA by taking part in a series of agreements and concerted practices on the market in carbon and graphite-based products for electrical and mechanical applications.
   In support of their action, the applicants claim, first, that the Commission erred in law by assuming that the first applicant, Schunk GmbH, which is a finance holding company, is jointly and severally liable for the fine imposed on its subsidiary, the second applicant, Schunk Kohlenstofftechnik GmbH (‘SKT’). Further, they plead that the contested decision has an unlawful legal basis, since Article 15 of Regulation 17/62 (1) gives the Commission a margin of discretion in relation to the amount of fines and is therefore incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and with higher ranking Community law. In addition, the Commission discriminated against the applicants relative to other undertakings in fixing the amount of the imposed fines, incorrectly assessed the deterrent effect of the fines and the cooperation of the applicants, and failed to have regard to material circumstances.

      (1)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959—1962, p. 87).


title: Case C-196/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre de recours des Écoles européennes lodged on 29 May 2009 — Paul Miles and Others, Robert Watson MacDonald v Secrétaire général des Écoles européennes

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre de recours des Écoles européennes lodged on 29 May 2009 — Paul Miles and Others, Robert Watson MacDonald v Secrétaire général des Écoles européennes
   (Case C-196/09)
   2009/C 193/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Chambre de recours des Ecoles européennes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Paul Miles and Others, Robert Watson MacDonald

      Defendant: Secrétaire général des Ecoles européennes

      Question(s) referred

               1.

               Is Article 234 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal such as the Chambre de recours, which was established by Article 27 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, (1) falls within its scope of application and, since the Chambre de recours acts as a tribunal of last instance, is competent to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Articles 12 and 39 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that they prevent the application of a remuneration system such as the system in force within the European Schools inasmuch as, although that system expressly refers to the system applying to Community officials, it does not allow for the taking into account, even retrospectively, of currency devaluation which leads to a decline in purchasing power for teachers who are seconded by the authorities of the Member State concerned?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, can a difference in situation such as that established between teachers seconded to the European Schools, whose remuneration is funded both by their national authorities and by the European School in which they teach, on the one hand, and officials of the European Community, whose remuneration is funded by the Community alone, on the other hand, justify a situation in which, in the light of the principles laid down in the articles cited above and although the [Service Regulations for staff seconded to the European School] expressly refer to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Community, the exchange rates applied in order to maintain an equivalent purchasing power are not the same?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 212, p. 3.


title: Case C-93/06: Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-93/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/54)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-551/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2016 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany — Rejection of the registration of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances — Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ — Implementing powers of the Commission)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/6

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2016 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH v European Commission
      (Case C-551/14 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany - Rejection of the registration of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances - Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ - Implementing powers of the Commission))
      (2016/C 454/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH (represented by: S. Kobes and B. Burkert, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


C 233/20               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-289/00 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-210/01 ( 1)
                        (2002/C 233/32)                                                         (2002/C 233/35)
By order of 3 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 15 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
register of Case C-289/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling         removal from the register of Case C-210/01: Commission of
by the Corte d’appello di Genova): Fincantieri — Cantieri             the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Navali Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v Federico Bianchi
and Others.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-458/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case   C-352/00 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/36)
                        (2002/C 233/33)
                                                                      By order of 19 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 register of Case C-458/01: Commission of the European
register of Case C-352/00: Italian Republic v Council of the          Communities v Italian Republic.
European Union.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-50/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-86/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 233/34)                                                         (2002/C 233/37)
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-86/01: Commission of the European Com-             the register of Case C-50/02: Commission of the European
munities v Republic of Austria.                                       Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                           (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-205/98)

text:
C 71/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
invalid. In the alternative, it argues that most of the delays       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were either caused by the Commission, or cases of force
majeure, so that, even if the clauses are considered valid,
                                                                     The applicant states that the contested decision removing
the amount of the deductions made by the Commission
                                                                     him from his post is based on the complaint that he took
should be reduced.
                                                                     part in internal competition COM/B/18/96 with prior
                                                                     knowledge of the subject-matter of some of the tests and
                                                                     without informing the selection board in advance that he
The applicant also seeks an order that the Commission
                                                                     possessed that knowledge. He accepts that complaint, but
pay it interest in respect of delay, since the final payment
                                                                     maintains that the contested decision disregarded the
for the supplies was not made within the period prescribed
                                                                     reasoned opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which
in the agreements.
                                                                     proposed merely the temporary suspension, for a period of
                                                                     two years, of his entitlement to advancement to a higher
                                                                     step.
Finally, it submits that when the agreements were put into
effect, the Commission questioned the Community origin
of some of the tools and halted their manufacture at the             The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
time, which caused it to incur considerable additional               of his application:
expenditure.      The    applicant     considers    that   the
Commission's action constitutes a breach of contract
                                                                     Ð Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
entitling it to damages.
                                                                         reasons, as regards, in particular, the reasons for
                                                                         which a more severe penalty was imposed, as well as
(1) OJ L 204, 25.7.1987, p. 1.                                           the failure to mention any possible mitigating factors.
                                                                     Ð Manifest error of assessment giving rise to a breach
                                                                         of the principles of proportionality and non-
                                                                         discrimination.
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Yannis Tzikis                  Ð Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    interests of officials.
                       (Case T-203/98)
                                                                     Ð Infringement of procedural requirements and of the
                        (1999/C 71/56)
                                                                         rights of the defence, inasmuch as the appointing
                                                                         authority did not even carry out an investigation or
                                                                         make any detailed and impartial inquiries.
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December
1998 by Yannis Tzikis, residing at Boortmeerbeek                     Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
(Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and                   Others against the Commission of the European
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service                                   Communities
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                                (Case T-205/98)
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 71/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the decision taken by the appointing authority               An action against the Commission of the European
    on 27 October 1998, by which it removed the                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
    applicant from his post with effect from 1 November              Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
    1998;                                                            1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
                                                                     AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La
                                                                     Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented
Ð order the Commission to pay damages by way of                      by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot
    compensation for the loss suffered by him as a result            (France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    of the illegality of the decision of the appointing              Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
    authority of 27 October 1998, those damages being
    provisionally quantified in the sum of 1 euro;
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/31
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs           Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.
authorities of a rebate application lodged on 20 December
1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
originating in and emanating from Poland.                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs
The dispute concerns, in essence, a disagreement
                                                                   authorities of a rebate application lodged on 23 October
concerning the customs nomenclature applicable to the
                                                                   1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
products in question and the question whether those
                                                                   originating in and emanating from Poland.
products should be allocated to the tariff quota for
Poland.
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                   Case T-205/98 Clauni v Commission.
The applicants state that the national authorities did not
arrange for any proper analysis of the goods by an
independent authority with a view to verifying the
administrative authorities' assertion that the mushrooms
were deep-cooked. On the contrary, the only serious and
independent analysis carried out in the present case
concluded that the products were not deep-cooked.
                                                                   Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola
                                                                                against European Investment Bank
The applicants also maintain that the Commission, as the                                 (Case T-208/98)
general guardian of the Treaty, possesses its own                                         (1999/C 71/59)
competence in customs matters, so that any failure on the
part of customs authorities of the Member States to
observe the principles of Community law or to forward a                           (Language of the case: Italian)
rebate application must result in the Communities
incurring non-contractual liability in the application of
Community customs law.                                             An action against the European Investment Bank was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola,
Lastly, for the purposes of providing all such further             an official of the European Investment Bank, represented
clarification of their position as may be necessary, the           by Luigi Isola of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
applicants refer to an expert's report annexed to the              in Luxembourg at 16 Rue du Kiem, 8030 Strassen.
application.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the promotions communicated on 6 August
                                                                       1998 in so far as they do not contain the applicant's
                                                                       name;
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
Others against the Commission of the European
                        Communities
                                                                   Ð annul the decision contained in the report of the
                      (Case T-206/98)                                  Appeals Committee attached to the letter sent by Mr
                                                                       Pietila dated 23 September 1998; and
                       (1999/C 71/58)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay compensation for physical,
               (Language of the case: French)                          non-material and material damage in the terms set out
                                                                       above.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La           The material facts are as set forth in Case T-7/98 De
Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented            Nicola v EIB (1). The applicant would add however that he
by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot             has had to leave his employment with the defendant as a
(France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         result of the strong pressure which he claims to have been
Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              subjected to by his immediate superiors.


title: Case T-370/11: Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Poland v Commission

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/9

         Action brought on 8 July 2011 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-370/11)
   2011/C 290/12
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Undersecretary of State)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 (notified under document C(2011) 2772) determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law

                           —

                           Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 194(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 192(2)(c) TFEU, by failing to take account of the particular characteristics of individual Member States concerning fuel and by calculating benchmarks on the basis of the reference efficiency of natural gas and taking that fuel as the reference fuel.

               2.

               Second plea in law

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 191(2) TFEU in conjunction with Article 191(3) TFEU by failing to take account, when drawing up the contested decision, of the diversity of the situations in individual regions of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law

                           —

                           Infringement of Article 5(4) TEU (principle of proportionality) by setting the benchmarks in the contested decision at a more restrictive level than attainment of the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC requires.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law

                           —

                           Infringement of Article 10a, in conjunction with Article 1, of Directive 2003/87/EC and lack of competence for the European Commission to adopt the contested measure.


title: Case T-62/05: Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/31

         Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-62/05)
   (2005/C 106/65)
   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 15 February 2005 by Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A., established in Treviso (Italy), represented by S. Feltrinelli and G. Brogi, lawyers.
   Lotos Brillen Vertriebs-GmbH, established in Eisingen (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 7 October 2004, ruling case R 572/2003-4;

               —

               declare that the mark applied for, in so far as it concerns goods falling in class 9, namely ‘sports spectacles not made of precious material’, is not capable of being confused with the opponent's CTM Mark No 610 642 and the International mark No 447 179;

               —

               order the reimbursement of the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The figurative mark ‘Lotto’ for goods in classes 3, 9 and 16 (Spectacles, spectacle frames, spectacle cases, spectacle chains, spectacle cords, spectacle lenses, binoculars (optics, …) — application No 1 443 183

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Lotos Brillen Vertriebs GmbH

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The Community and international word mark ‘Lotos’ for goods in classes 9, 14 and 18 (Optical apparatus and instruments; spectacles; spectacle frames, in particular of metal; precious metals and their alloys; leather and imitations of leather; …) — CTM registration No 610 642

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the trade mark application for the opposed goods, ie. the goods in class 9

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Case C-399/07: Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/19

         Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-399/07)
   (2007/C 247/25)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and M. Telles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/6/EC (1) of 26 January 2005 amending Directive 71/250/EEC as regards reporting and interpretation of analytical results required under Directive 2002/32/EC or, in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 16 February 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 24, p. 33.


title: Case C-159/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 April 2014 — ‘Koela-N’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 April 2014 — ‘Koela-N’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-159/14)
   2014/C 175/36
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Koela-N’ EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the ability to dispose of tangible property as owner also includes the right to instruct a carrier to deliver the goods to a third person other than the intended recipient stated on the invoice, and, on that basis, the receipt of the goods by that person on its own constitutes proof of previously effected supplies of goods?

               2.

               Is Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the goods are not actually in the possession of the direct supplier — regardless of whether the buyer has received the goods — means that the conditions for the existence of a supply under the directive are not satisfied?

               3.

               Do the fact that the upstream suppliers in the supply chain have not assisted the tax authorities and the non-loading of the goods constitute objective grounds from which it may be inferred that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct is connected with tax fraud?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-247/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2008 — Gaz de France — Berliner Investissement SA v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 June 2008 — Gaz de France — Berliner Investissement SA v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-247/08)
   (2008/C 223/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gaz de France — Berliner Investissement SA

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 2(a) in conjunction with paragraph (f) of the Annex to Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (1) be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the directive a French company taking the legal form of a ‘société par actions simplifiée’ may be regarded even for the years prior to 2005 as ‘company of a Member State’ with the result that in respect of a profit distribution effected by its Germany subsidiary in 1999 the former company is entitled to an exemption from withholding tax in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435/EEC?

               2.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Inasmuch as Article 2(a) in conjunction with paragraph (f) of the Annex to Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States together with Article 5(1) of the same directive in the event of a profit distribution by a German subsidiary establishes an exemption from withholding tax in favour of French parent companies taking the legal form of a ‘société anonyme’, ‘société en commandite par actions’ or ‘société à responsabilite limitee’ not, however, French parent companies taking the legal form of a ‘société par actions simplifiée’ do such provisions infringe Articles 43 EC and 48 EC or Article 56(1) EC and Article 58(1)(a) and (3) EC?

      (1)   OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.


C 211/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/98 (1)                    ordered the removal from the register of Case T-180/99,
                                                                         Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 211/54)                                  ties.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-194/98: Scan Office Design S.A. v Commission of the
European Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-221/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 211/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-4/99 (1)                     By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                        (2000/C 211/55)                                  has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-221/99:
                                                                         Gitte Rassmussen v Council of the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
By order of 13 April 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-4/99,
OGT-Fruchthandelgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the
European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                       Removal from the register of Case T-21/00 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case        T-180/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 3 May 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
                        (2000/C 211/56)                                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-21/00 David
                                                                         Crabbe v Centre Européen pour le Développement de la
                   (Language of the case: French)                        Formation Professionnelle (CEDEFOP).
By order of 13 April 2000 the Court of First Instance of the
European Communites (single judge: R.M. Moura Ramos) has                 (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case T-254/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark NEW MAX — Earlier figurative Community trade mark MAX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
   (Case T-254/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark NEW MAX - Earlier figurative Community trade mark MAX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 346/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F.-P. Hirschel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 2035/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG and Warenhandelszentrum Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Warenhandelszentrum Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case T-477/10: Action brought on 9 October 2010 — SE — Blusen Stenau v OHIM (SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/48

         Action brought on 9 October 2010 — SE — Blusen Stenau v OHIM (SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS (SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT)
   (Case T-477/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/94
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SE — Blusen Stenau GmbH (Gronau, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS GmbH (Wels, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2010 in Case R 1393/2009-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: SPORT EYBL & SPORTS EXPERTS GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘SE© SPORTS EQUIPMENT’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and international registration ‘SE’ for goods in Class 25 and German word marks ‘SE So Easy’ and ‘SE-Blusen’ for goods in Classes 14, 18, 24 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The contested decision was annulled and remitted to the Opposition Division for further consideration.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in that the marks at issue are identical and there is a likelihood of confusion.

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


title: Case F-62/10: Action brought on 30 July 2010 — Esders v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/28

         Action brought on 30 July 2010 — Esders v Commission
   (Case F-62/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jürgen Esders (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodriguez, M. Vandenbussche and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision reassigning the applicant to Brussels as part of the 2010 rotation.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this action to be admissible;

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of 27 July 2010 reassigning the applicant to Brussels as from 1 September 2010;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-84/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala (Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Public health — Pharmacies — National licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies — Establishment of branch pharmacies — Conditions which differ according to whether the pharmacy is a private pharmacy or a University of Helsinki pharmacy — University of Helsinki Pharmacy having specific tasks in connection with pharmacy teaching and pharmaceutical services)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala
   (Case C-84/11) (1)

   (Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - National licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies - Establishment of branch pharmacies - Conditions which differ according to whether the pharmacy is a private pharmacy or a University of Helsinki pharmacy - University of Helsinki Pharmacy having specific tasks in connection with pharmacy teaching and pharmaceutical services)
   2012/C 250/09
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Marja-Liisa Susisalo, Olli Tuomaala, Merja Ritala
   Intervening party Helsingin yliopiston apteekki

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 106(2) TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies — National law providing for a licensing scheme for the operation of pharmacies with conditions which are more favourable for University pharmacies than for private pharmacies — University Pharmacy having specific responsibilities relating to pharmacy teaching and to the supply of medicines

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a licensing scheme for the operation of branch pharmacies specific to the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki which is more favourable than that applicable to private pharmacies, provided that — which is for the referring court to verify — the branches of the Helsingin yliopiston apteekki actually participate in the accomplishment of the specific tasks relating to the teaching of pharmacy students, research on pharmaceutical services and the manufacture of rare pharmaceutical preparations conferred on the latter by national law

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2003 in Case T-250/01: Dresdner Bank AG v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Application for access to documents — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/11
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of the Hearing Officer's decision of 16 August 2001 refusing
                                                                         to allow the applicant access to certain documents concerning
                          of 9 July 2003                                 the closure of the proceeding in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 —
                                                                         bank fees for currency exchange in the Euro zone, initiated
in Case T-219/01: Commerzbank AG v Commission of                         against other banks — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                the European Communities (1)                             Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
                                                                         P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
(Action for annulment — Application for access to docu-                  an order on 9 July 2003, in which it:
ments — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)
                         (2003/C 251/21)
                                                                         1.   Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   Orders the applicant to bear its own and the defendant's costs.
In Case T-219/01: Commerzbank AG, established in Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzki and B. Maassen,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for annulment               (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.
of the Hearing Officer's decision of 17 August 2001 refusing
to allow the applicant access to certain documents concerning
the closure of the proceeding in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 —
bank fees for currency exchange in the Euro zone, initiated
against other banks — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
an order on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                                 INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 August 2003
1.   Dismisses the action as inadmissible.                               in Case T-158/03 R: Industria Químicas del Vallés, SA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
2.   Orders the applicant to bear its own and the defendant's costs,     (Interlocutory proceedings — Application to suspend applica-
     including the costs of the interlocutory proceedings in Case        tion — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of interests)
     T-219/01 R.
                                                                                (2003/C 251/23)
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.01.                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         In Case T-158/03 R: Industria Químicas del Vallés, SA, estab-
                                                                         lished in Barcelona (Spain), represented by C. Fernández
                                                                         Vicién, P. González-Espejo and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers,
                                                                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (FIFTH                              B. Doherty and S. Pardo Quintillán) — application to suspend
                           CHAMBER)                                      application of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                         2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to
                          of 9 July 2003                                 Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of author-
                                                                         isations granted to plant-protection products containing this
in Case T-250/01: Dresdner Bank AG v Commission of                       active substance (OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8), the President of the
                the European Communities (1)                             Court made an order on 5 August 2003, the operative part of
                                                                         which is as follows:
(Action for annulment — Application for access to docu-
ments — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)
                         (2003/C 251/22)                                 1.   The interlocutory application is dismissed;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-250/01: Dresdner Bank AG, established in Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by W. Bosch and M. Hirsch,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for annulment


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 February 1999 in Case C-366/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Florence): criminal proceedings against Massimo Romanelli and Paolo Romanelli (Freedom to provide services - Credit institutions - Repayable funds)

text:
10.4.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/7
Nordhorn (Germany) for a preliminary in the criminal                 Florence (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
proceedings before that court against Arnoldus van der               proceedings pending before that court against Massimo
Laan Ð on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC                 Romanelli, Paolo Romanelli Ð on the interpretation of
Treaty Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann             Article 3 of the Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of
(Rapporteur), (President of the Chamber) D. A. O.                    15 December 1989 on the coordination of laws,
Edward and M. Wathelet, Judges, J. Mischo, Advocate-                 regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 February 1999, in               and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ L 386,
which it has ruled:                                                  30.12.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                     composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of
                                                                     the Chamber, G. Hirsch, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and
It is contrary to Article 30 of the EC Treaty for national           R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H.
rules to prohibit, for reasons of consumer protection, the           von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
marketing of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and                    given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in which it has
marketed in another Member State, where consumers are                ruled:
protected by means of labelling in accordance with the
provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of                 The term other repayable funds' in Article 3 of the
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation            Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
and advertising of foodstuffs, in particular those                   1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
concerning the description of products and the list of               administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
ingredients.                                                         pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
                                                                     Directive 77/780/EEC refers not only to financial
                                                                     instruments which possess the intrinsic characteristic of
It is contrary to Articles 2 and 5(1) of Directive 79/112/           repayability, but also to those which, although not
EEC to use a trade description which does not make it                possessing that characteristic, are the subject of a
possible for purchasers in the State where the product is            contractual agreement to repay the funds paid.
sold to ascertain the true nature of the foodstuff.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
Where the quantity of added water represents more than
5 % by weight of the finished product, failure to include
water' in the list of ingredients constitutes infringement of
Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(5)(a), of
Directive 79/112/EEC.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                                of 23 February 1999
                                                                     in Case C-42/97: European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                     (Council Decision 96/664/EC Ð Promotion of linguistic
                                                                     diversity of the Community in the information society Ð
                                                                                Legal basis)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (1999/C 100/11)
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 11 February 1999                                            (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-366/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Florence): criminal
proceedings against Massimo Romanelli and Paolo                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          Romanelli (1)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Credit institutions Ð
                       Repayable funds)                              In Case C-42/97: European Parliament (Agents: Johann
                                                                     Schoo and Norbert Lorenz) v. Council of the European
                        (1999/C 100/10)                              Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and FreÂdeÂric Anton)
                                                                     Ð Application for annulment of Council Decision 96/664/
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      EC of 21 November 1996 on the adoption of a
                                                                     multiannual programme to promote linguistic diversity of
                                                                     the Community in the information society (OJ L 306,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       28.11.1996, p. 40) Ð the Court, composed of: P. J. G.
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Kapteyn, President of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers,
                                                                     actig as President, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of
                                                                     Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
In Case C-366/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           Gulmann, J. L. Murray, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale,                 Wathelet, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;


title: Case C-662/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Deduction of input tax — Transactions constituting an abusive practice — National tax law — Special national procedure where the existence of abusive practices is suspected in the field of taxation — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/9

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-662/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax - Transactions constituting an abusive practice - National tax law - Special national procedure where the existence of abusive practices is suspected in the field of taxation - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence))
   (2015/C 118/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the mandatory preliminary application of a national administrative procedure, such as that laid down by Article 63 of the Code of Taxation Procedure and Proceedings (Código de Procedimento e de Processo Tributário), in the event that the revenue authorities suspect the existence of an abusive practice.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case C-78/15: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/46

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH
   (Case C-78/15) (1)

   (2016/C 038/58)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 7 July 1998 in Joined Cases C-405/96 to C-408/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Saint-Denis de la Réunion): Société Beton Express and Others v. Direction Régionale de la Réunion (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifestly identical question)

text:
5.9.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 278/11
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 Action brought on 7 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against the French Republic
                        of 7 July 1998
                                                                                (Case C-169/98)
in Joined Cases C-405/96 to C-408/96 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Saint-                                   (98/C 278/20)
Denis de la ReÂunion): SocieÂteÂ Beton Express and Others v.
            Direction ReÂgionale de la ReÂunion (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Ð Manifestly               An action against the French Republic was brought before
                      identical question)                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     7 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
                        (98/C 278/19)                                Communities, represented by Peter Hillenkamp, Legal
                                                                     Adviser, and HeÂleÁne Michard, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                     as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                (Language of the case: French)                       Kirchberg.
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       that the Court should:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Ð declare that, in applying the general social
                                                                         contribution (GSC) to the income from employment or
In Joined Cases C-405/96 to C-408/96: reference to the
                                                                         income substitution benefit of workers who are
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
                                                                         resident in France but who, by virtue of Regulation
Tribunal d'Instance de Saint-Denis de la ReÂunion (France)
                                                                         (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), are not subject to French social
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                         security legislation, France has failed to fulfil its
that court between SocieÂteÂ Beton Express (Case C-405/
                                                                         obligations under Articles 48 to 52 of the EC Treaty
96), SocieÂteÂ Nouvelle de Concassage (Case C-406/96),
                                                                         and Article 13 of that Regulation,
SocieÂteÂ Bourbon LumieÁre (Case C-407/96) and SocieÂteÂ
Ouest Concassage (Case 408/96) and Direction ReÂgionale
des Douanes de la ReÂunion Ð Intervener: ReÂgion ReÂu-
nion, on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the          Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.
Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F.
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Murray, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an            According to the Commission, the levying of the general
order on 7 July 1998, the operative part of which is as              social contribution (hereinafter the GSC') on employees'
follows:                                                             income from employment or income substitution benefit
                                                                     derived from professional activity in another Member
                                                                     State constitutes a twofold social levy contrary both to the
                                                                     provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, and
Council Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December 1989                      Article 13 thereof in particular, and to Articles 48 to 52 of
concerning the dock dues in the French overseas                      the Treaty concerning freedom of movement for workers
departments must be interpreted as meaning that it                   within the Community.
precludes exemptions which are of a general or systematic
nature and which are therefore liable to lead to the
reintroduction of a tax having an effect equivalent to a
customs duty. On the other hand, Decision 89/688/EEC                 The Commission points out that, according to the
authorises exemptions which are necessary, proportional              consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, the designation
and precisely determined and which fulfil the strict                 of a tax, charge, levy, contribution or fee must be
conditions laid down by Article 2(3) of that Decision, as            examined in the light of the objective characteristics of the
interpreted in the light of the limits provided for in               levy concerned, irrespective of the designation given to it
Article 226 of the EC Treaty.                                        by the Member State in question.
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                     In this case, account should be taken, first, of the purpose
                                                                     and use made of the levy and, second, of the arrangements
                                                                     for the collection and charging of the contribution in
                                                                     question.


title: Judgment of the Court of 2 August 2016 in Case E-35/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues)

text:
               13.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/24

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 2 August 2016
   in Case E-35/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues)
   (2017/C 120/12)
   In Case E-35/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred at point 56i of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) by failing to (i) develop and implement an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC; (ii) evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plans, monitor their implementation and ensure their re-approval at least every three years as required by Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/59/EC; and (iii) ensure the availability of port reception facilities in all ports in Norway adequate to meet the needs of the ships normally using the ports without causing undue delay to ships as required by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 August 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation arising under the Act referred to at point 56i of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) within the time-limit prescribed by:

                           a.

                           failing to develop and implement an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port in Norway as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC;

                           b.

                           failing to evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Norway, monitor their implementation and ensure their re-approval at least every three years as required by Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/59/EC; and

                           c.

                           failing to ensure the availability of port reception facilities in all ports in Norway adequate to meet the needs of the ships normally using the port without causing undue delay to ships as required by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-382/12 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2012 by MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc., MasterCard Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 24 May 2012 in Case T-111/08: Mastercard, Inc. and others v European Commission

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/4

         Appeal brought on 6 August 2012 by MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc., MasterCard Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 24 May 2012 in Case T-111/08: Mastercard, Inc. and others v European Commission
   (Case C-382/12 P)
   2012/C 319/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc., MasterCard Europe (represented by: V. Brophy, E. Barbier de La Serre, B. Amory, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Banco Santander, SA, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, HSBC Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, MBNA Europe Bank Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, British Retail Consortium, EuroCommerce AISBL

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 in Case T-111/08, MasterCard and others v. Commission;

               —

               annul the Commission Decision C(2007) 6474 final of 19 December 2007 in Cases COMP/34.579 — MasterCard, COMP/36.518 — EuroCommerce, COMP/38.580 — Commercial Cards (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs of the Applicants before this Court and before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:-

                     First plea
                  : the General Court made an error of law and/or failed to provide adequate reasoning with regard to the assessment of the objective necessity of the alleged restriction of competition. Specifically, the General Court misapplied the well-established test of objective necessity. Rather than applying the proper test under which a restriction is objectively necessary if it is either impossible or
                     difficult
                   to achieve the main operation without it, the General Court applied an incomplete test according to which a restriction is objectively necessary only if, without it, the main operation is
                     incapable
                   of functioning. In addition, the General Court; (i) failed to assess the alleged restriction, and therefore objective necessity, in its proper context; (ii) erroneously substituted its own assessment for that of the Commission; and (iii) failed to apply the right standard of review.

                     Second plea
                  : the General Court made an error of law and/or failed to provide adequate reasoning with regard to the assessment of whether MasterCard is an association of undertakings. Specifically, the General Court made an error of law in considering the alleged commonality of interest between the banks and MasterCard, and the banks' residual decision-making powers post IPO, unrelated to the Multilateral Interchange Fee (‘MIF’), as sufficient to characterize MasterCard as an association of undertakings when taking decisions regarding the MIF. In any event, the banks' decision-making powers post IPO, and the alleged commonality of interests between the banks and MasterCard, are irrelevant to determine whether MasterCard is an association of undertakings when taking decisions regarding the MIF.

                     Third plea
                  : the General Court made errors of law concerning the admissibility of several annexes to the Application. There was no basis in law for the General Court to limit MasterCard's right of access to the court in this way. Furthermore, even if the General Court had such powers, it erred in finding that the limitation should apply in this particular case.

      (1)  Summary of Commission Decision of 19 December 2007

      OJ C 264, 6.11.2009, p. 8


title: Case T-632/16: Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Haeberlen v ENISA

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/22

         Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Haeberlen v ENISA
   (Case T-632/16)
   (2016/C 410/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Haeberlen (Swisttal, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

         Consequently,

               —

               annul the decision of 21 October 2015;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 20 May 2016, received on 23 May 2016, rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order compensation, assessed at EUR 3 000, to be paid for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5) and of Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12) (‘the contested regulations’). In particular, the adoption of the contested regulations is vitiated by a number of irregularities, inter alia, infringement of essential procedural requirements, of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 10 of Annex XI to the applicable Staff Regulations prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), infringement of Articles 10, 11 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of acquired rights and proportionality, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation, and of the rules on social dialogue.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of the obligation to state reasons and of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.


title: Case C-81/08 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Miguel Cabrera Sánchez v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Mixed word and figurative mark — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier mark)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/14

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Miguel Cabrera Sánchez v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA
   (Case C-81/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Mixed word and figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier mark)
   (2009/C 69/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Miguel Cabrera Sánchez (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent) and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case T-242/06 Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM and Industrias Cárnicas Valle, by which the Court dismissed the action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2006 (Case R 790/2005-01), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Cabrera Sánchez and Industrias Cárnicas Valle SA.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Cabrera Sánchez shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.