title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello di Torino - Sezione I Civile - by order of that court of 31 January 1997 in the case of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato against Grafoplast Italiana SpA in its own right and as the successor to Grafoplast Italiana SRL and Trasp. SRL (Case C-84/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 131 /7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello               — Does a system under which VAT on a benefit in kind
di Torino — Sezione I Civile — by order of that court of                     granted to an employee of an undertaking is calculated
31 January 1997 in the case of Amministrazione delle                         on a VAT inclusive basis when Belgian VAT is paid by
Finanze dello Stato against Grafoplast Italiana SpA in its                   the employer and on a VAT exclusive basis when VAT
own right and as the successor to Grafoplast Italiana SRL                    of another Member State is paid offend against
                           and Trasp. SRL                                    Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome and the principle of
                           (Case C-84/97)                                    'fiscal neutrality' laid down by the sixth VAT
                                                                             Directive ?
                            ( 97/C 131 /15 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello di
Torino, Sezione I Civile ( First Civil Division of the Court
of Appeal, Turin ) of 31 January 1997, which was received
at the Court Registry on 25 February 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Amministrazione delle Fi
nanze dello Stato against Grafoplast Italiana SpA in its
own right and as the successor to Grafoplast Italiana SRL               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
and Trasp. SRL on the following question:                               by order of that court of 26 November 1996 in the case of
                                                                        Reiner Woltmann trading as Firma Trans-Ex-Import
'Does there exist a principle of law which precludes a                                   against Hauptzollamt Potsdam
Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations by                                          Case C-86/97 )
failing to adapt domestic law to Community law from
restricting the right of an individual to initiate proceedings                                       97/C 131 / 17
based directly on Community law and relating to the
period prior to such adaptation, and if so to determine in
the light of that principle the compatibility with                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Community law of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Decree No 641 of                   European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
26 October 1972, which makes subject to a time limit of                 ( Federal Finance Court) of 26 November 1996, received at
three years an action for recovery of the sum unduly paid               the Court Registry on 27 February 1997, for a preliminary
in the period prior to the entry into force of the 1993                 ruling in the case of Reiner Woltmann trading as Firma
adaptation of domestic law to the Community Directive                   Trans-Ex-Import against Hauptzollamt Potsdam ( Principal
by Grafoplast to the Italian State pursuant to provisions               Customs Office Potsdam ) on the following questions :
which infringe Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/
EEC (')?'
                                                                        1 . Is Article 905 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
(!) OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969, p. 25 .                                     No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
                                                                             the implementation of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                             No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
                                                                             Code (') to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                             decision-making customs authority is not to accept
                                                                             that there is a 'special situation resulting from
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fifth Chamber
                                                                             circumstances in which no deception or obvious
of the Tribunal de Premiere Instance, Liege, by judgment
                                                                             negligence may be attributed to the person concerned'
of that court of 24 February 1997 in the case of Societe
                                                                             if on the theft of goods from a customs warehouse
Financiere d'Investissements SPRL ( SFI) against the
                                                                             ( non-Community            goods )    the conditions   in
                              Belgian State
                                                                             Article 900 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93
                           ( Case C-85/97 )                                  for remission of customs duty to the owner of the
                             ( 97/C 131 / 16                                 warehouse are not met ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Fifth Chamber                   2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
of the Tribunal de Premiere Instance ( Court of First
Instance ), Liege, of 24 February 1997, received at the
Court Registry on 27 February 1997, for a preliminary                        does the same apply in a case of hardship where theft
ruling in the case of Societe Financiere d'Investissements                   was not an insurable risk and the levying of customs
SPRL ( SFI ) against the Belgian State on the following                      duty would destroy the warehouse owners business, or
questions :
                                                                             may it be found on such facts that there is a 'special
                                                                              situation' within the meaning of Article 905 ( 1 ) of
— is the position taken by the VAT authorities, that the                      Regulation ( EEC ) No' 2454/93 which should be
     limitation period for the collection of tax runs from                    referred to the Commission for decision ?
     the 20th of the month following the quarter in which
     registration for VAT took place, as regards taxable                 (') OJ L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
     transactions carried out before that registration,
     compatible with Articles 4 and 10 of the sixth VAT
     Directive ( ] )?


title: Case C-525/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — State aid — Non-recovery of contributions, default surcharges and interest owed — Admissibility — Private creditor test)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-525/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Non-recovery of contributions, default surcharges and interest owed - Admissibility - Private creditor test)
   (2008/C 8/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and J. Buendía Sierra, Agents, M. Núñez-Müller, Rechtsanwalt), Lenzing AG, (represented by: U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 October 2004 in Case T-36/99 between Lenzing AG and the Commission in which the Court annulled Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998 on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace SA, located in Torrelavega, Cantabria (OJ 1999 L 149, p. 40), as amended by Commission Decision 2001/43/EC of 20 September 2000 (OJ 2001 L 11, p. 46) — Admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a competitor of the undertaking benefiting from the aid — Definition of a person individually concerned by the contested decision — Agreements on the rescheduling and repayment of debts — Private creditor test
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs and those incurred by Lenzing AG;

               3)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case T-373/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2006 — Fries Guggenheim v Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training — Posts of heads of area — Filling of posts by reassignment — No provision for a selection procedure)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2006 — Fries Guggenheim v Cedefop
   (Case T-373/04) (1)

   (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training - Posts of heads of area - Filling of posts by reassignment - No provision for a selection procedure)
   (2006/C 224/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   Applicant: Éric Mathias Fries Guggenheim (Thessasoniki, Greece) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)
   Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decisions of the director of Cedefop of 28 January 2004, appointing certain persons as Heads of Area.
   Operative part of the Judgment

               (1)

               The decisions of the director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 28 January 2004 appointing certain persons as Heads of Areas A to D are annulled.

               (2)

               Cedefop shall bear the costs

      (1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.


title: Case T-216/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Technion and Technion Research v Commission (Funding — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Recovery of sums paid by the Commission in connection with a research contract in line with the conclusions of a financial audit — Set-off of claims — Reclassification in part of the action — Application for a declaration that a contractual claim does not exist — Arbitration clause — Eligible costs — Unjust enrichment — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Technion and Technion Research v Commission
   (Case T-216/12) (1)

   ((Funding - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Recovery of sums paid by the Commission in connection with a research contract in line with the conclusions of a financial audit - Set-off of claims - Reclassification in part of the action - Application for a declaration that a contractual claim does not exist - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Unjust enrichment - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 398/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu and F. Moro, acting as Agents, assisted initially by L. Defalque and S. Woog, and subsequently by L. Defalque and J. Thiry, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, of the Commission’s set-off decision contained in the letter of 13 March 2012, addressed to Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, and seeking recovery of the sum of EUR 97  118,69, corresponding to the amount of the adjusted sums, plus interest, for contract No 034984 (Mosaica), following the conclusions of the financial audit concerning, inter alia, that contract concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-2006), and, secondly, application for a declaration, on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, that the claim which the Commission claims to have against Technion under the Mosaica contract and which is the subject matter of the disputed set-off does not exist.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case F-93/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Beatriz Acosta Iborra and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion procedure — Ability to work in a third language)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/72

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Beatriz Acosta Iborra and Others v Commission
   (Case F-93/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Ability to work in a third language)
   (2009/C 44/126)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Beatriz Acosta Iborra (Alkmaar, Netherlands) and nine other officials of the Commission (represented by: N. Lhoëst, initially, and N. Lhoëst and S. Fernández Menéndez, subsequently, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicants for failure to demonstrate that they were able to work in a third language for the 2006 promotion procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions not to promote for the 2006 promotion procedure Ms Acosta Iborra and the nine other officials of the Commission of the European Communities whose names appear annexed to this judgment;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicants;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 44.


title: Case T-391/07: Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Alber v OHIM (part of hand grip)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/41

         Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Alber v OHIM (part of hand grip)
   (Case T-391/07)
   (2007/C 315/78)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Alfons Alber (Vöran, Italy) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 August 2007 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 January 2007 in so far as those decisions reject registration of Community trade mark No 4 396 727 in respect of the goods ‘manually operated tools for agricultural, horticultural and forestry activities, including garden shears, tree pruning shears, hedge clippers; manually operated secateurs …’;

               —

               hold oral proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional trade mark ‘Part of hand grip’ in respect of goods in Classes 6 and 8 (application No 4 396 727)

      Decision of the Examiner: refusal in part of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the principle laid down in the first sentence of Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) that the Office examines the facts of its own motion and infringement of Article 7 of that regulation. In the alternative, failure to the state reasons on which a decision is based pursuant to the first sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94.

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


title: Case T-718/16: Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/30

         Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)
   (Case T-718/16)
   (2016/C 462/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Venice, California, United States of America) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aerospinning Master Franchising Ltd. s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SPINNING’ — EU trade mark No 175 117

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2375/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU work mark No 000175117 ‘SPINNING’ for the goods ‘exercise equipment’ in Class 28 and the services ‘exercise training’ in Class 41;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               Infringement of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-91/09: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2010 — Skareby v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Reports — Career Development Report — 2005 Assessment procedure — Simplified report established for the period from January to September 2005 — Repetition of all the findings in the 2004 Career Development Report partially annulled subsequent to the judgment under appeal)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2010 — Skareby v Commission
      (Case T-91/09) (1)

      (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Reports - Career Development Report - 2005 Assessment procedure - Simplified report established for the period from January to September 2005 - Repetition of all the findings in the 2004 Career Development Report partially annulled subsequent to the judgment under appeal)
      (2010/C 288/73)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Carina Skareby (Louvain, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Berschied and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission [2008] ECR II-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets side the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission [2008] ECR I-0000 in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the complaint alleging the failure to assess the productivity of Ms Carina Skareby for the period from January to September 2005.

                  2.

                  Sets aside the decision of 18 July 2006 establishing Ms Skareby’s Career Evaluation Report for the period from January to September 2005 in so far as it concerns paragraph 6.1 entitled ‘Productivity’.

                  3.

                  Dismisses with respect to the remainder the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-34/07.

                  4.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear all the costs relating to the present proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal.

         (1)  OJ C 102 of 1.5.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 1998 in Case C-317/97 P: Smanor SA and Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud v. Commission of the European Communities (Order of the Court of First Instance - Failure to initiate infringement proceedings - Action for a declaration of failure to act and for damages - Appeal - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
C 312/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.10.98
a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the                  Smanor and Others v. Commission [1997] ECR II-1081,
prescribed      periods,     the    laws,   regulations     and      seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to the
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Ð                 proceedings being Commission of the European
Commission Directive 94/15/EC of 15 April 1994                       Communities (Agents: Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier
adapting to technical progress for the first time Council            Couvert-CasteÂra) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the              composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ L 103,             P. J. G. Kapteyn and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;
22.4.1994, p. 20) and Ð Commission Directive 94/51/EC                A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress                    order on 9 July 1998, the operative part of which is as
Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of                 follows:
genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ L 297,
18.11.1994, p. 29), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                1. The appeal is dismissed.
failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives Ð the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,                2. The appellants shall pay the costs.
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has            (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
given a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it:
1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
     period, the laws, regulations and administrative
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission
     Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
     technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on
     the contained use of genetically modified micro-                                       (Third Chamber)
     organisms, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                                            of 14 July 1998
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
     Directive;                                                      in Case C-399/97: Glasoltherm SARL v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, EÂlectriciteÂ de France and
2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                                  HLM Colomiers Habitat SA' (1)
     costs.                                                                        (Inadmissibility of the application)
                                                                                (98/C 312/04)
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     In Case C-399/97: Glasoltherm SARL, in liquidation,
                          of 9 July 1998                             established at Orsay (France), represented by Pascal
in Case C-317/97 P: Smanor SA and Hubert SeÂgaud                     Penciolelli, of the EÂvry Bar, whose address is at 18 Avenue
and Monique SeÂgaud v. Commission of the European                    de la LibeÂration, 91130 Ris-Orangis (France), v.
                         Communities (1)                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier Couvert-Castera,
(Order of the Court of First Instance Ð Failure to initiate          assisted by Nicole Coutrelis), EÂlectriciteÂ de France,
infringement proceedings Ð Action for a declaration of               established in Paris, and HLM Colomiers Habitat SA',
failure to act and for damages Ð Appeal Ð Manifest                   established at Colomiers (France) Ð the Court (Third
                         inadmissibility)                            Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
                          (98/C 312/03)                              President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P.
                                                                     Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; R.
                (Language of the case: French)                       Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 14 July 1998, the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   1. The action is inadmissible.
In Case C-317/97 P: Smanor SA, a company incorporated                2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
under French law, established at Saint-Martin-d'EÂcublei,
France, and Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud, residing
at Saint-Martin-d'EÂcublei, represented by Laurence                  3. Glasoltherm SARL in liquidation shall pay the costs.
Roques, of the Val-de-Marne Bar, 7-9 Rue du GeÂneÂral de
Larminat, CreÂteil, France Ð appeal against the order of             (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber) of 3 July 1997 in Case T-201/96


title: Case C-478/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Budějovický Budvar národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Budějovický Budvar národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
   (Case C-478/07)
   (2008/C 22/45)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Handelsgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar národní podnik

      Defendant: Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               In its judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 the Court of Justice defined the requirements for the compatibility with Article 28 EC of the protection of a designation as a geographical indication which in the country of origin is the name neither of a place nor of a region, namely that such a designation must,

                           —

                           according to the factual circumstances and

                           —

                           perceptions in the country of origin, designate a region or a place in that State,

                           —

                           and that its protection must be justified there on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 30 EC.

                     Do those requirements mean:

                           1.1.

                           that the designation as such fulfils a specific geographical indication function referring to a particular place or a particular region, or does it suffice that the designation is capable, in conjunction with the product bearing it, of informing consumers that the product bearing it comes from a particular place or a particular region in the country of origin;

                           1.2.

                           that the three conditions are conditions to be examined separately and to be satisfied cumulatively;

                           1.3.

                           that a consumer survey is to be carried out for ascertaining perceptions in the country of origin, and, if so, that that a low, medium or high degree of recognition and association is required;

                           1.4.

                           that the designation has actually been used as a geographical indication by several undertakings, not just one undertaking, in the country of origin and that use as a trade mark by a single undertaking precludes protection?

               2.

               Does the circumstance that a designation has not been notified or its registration applied for either within the six-month period provided for in [Commission] Regulation (EC) No 918/2004 [of 29 April 2004 introducing transitional arrangements for the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs in connection with the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia] (1) or otherwise in the context of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 [of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs] (2) mean that existing national protection, or in any case protection that has been extended bilaterally to another Member State, becomes void if the designation is a qualified geographical indication under the national law of the State of origin?

               3.

               Does the circumstance that, in the context of the Treaty of Accession between the Member States of the European Union and a new Member State, the protection of several qualified geographical indications for a foodstuff has been claimed by that Member State in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 mean that national protection, or in any case protection that has been extended bilaterally to another Member State, for another designation for the same product may no longer be maintained, and Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has preclusive effect to that extent?

      (1)  OJ L 163 of 30.4.2004, p. 88.

      (2)  OJ L 93 of 31.3.2006, p. 12.


title: Case C-251/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division, by order of that court of 21 July 2004, in Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division, by order of that court of 21 July 2004, in Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   (Case C-251/05)
   (2005/C 205/19)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division, of 21 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following question:
   Where a Member State has, pursuant to Article 28(2) (a) the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) (1), by its domestic legislation exercised its right of derogation so as to zero-rate a supply of specified goods but in the same legislation has identified items that should not be included in the scope of the zero-rating (‘excluded items’), does the fact that there is a single supply of goods (together with the excluded items) preclude the member state from charging VAT at the standard rate on the supply of the excluded items?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).


24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 61/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of Case C-67/00 (1)
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                               (2001/C 61/24)
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
      concerning integrated pollution prevention and con-               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      trol (1) or, in any event, to inform the Commission               from the register of Case C-67/00: Commission of the
      thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with           European Communities v Ireland.
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                        (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-68/00 (1)
in Case C-26/01; the time-limit for transposition expired on
30 October 1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/25)
(1) OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.                                      By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-68/00: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-505/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 61/23)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-70/00 (1)
By order of 6 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                     (2001/C 61/26)
from the register of Case C-505/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                              By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-70/00: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                               European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case T-822/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/50

         Action brought on 21 November 2016 — KiK Textilien und Non-Food v EUIPO — FF Group Romania (_kix)
   (Case T-822/16)
   (2017/C 022/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and L. Pechan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

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

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘_kix’ — EU trade mark No 12 517 901

      Procedure before EUIPO: opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2016 in Case R 2323/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               infringement of Article 42(2) and (3), in conjunction with Article 15, of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-4/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2013 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark Maestro de Oliva — Earlier national word mark MAESTRO — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b) and 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2013 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva)
   (Case T-4/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark Maestro de Oliva - Earlier national word mark MAESTRO - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Articles 8(1)(b) and 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 24/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carapelli Firenze SpA (Tavarnelle Val di Pesa, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2011 (Case R 1612/2010-2), concerning an opposition procedure between Carapelli Firenze SpA and Olive Line International, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Olive Line International, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-454/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 1999/31/EC — Article 14 — Landfill of waste — Non-conformity of existing landfills — Closure and after-care procedures)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-454/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 1999/31/EC - Article 14 - Landfill of waste - Non-conformity of existing landfills - Closure and after-care procedures))
   (2016/C 145/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, for each of the landfill sites at issue, namely those in Urtuella (Basque Country) and in Zurita and Juan Grande (Canary Islands), the measures necessary to request the operator to prepare a conditioning plan and ensure full implementation of that plan in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, with the exception of those listed in Annex I, point 1, of that directive, within eight years after the date laid down in Article 18(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(c) of that directive in relation to each of those landfill sites;

               2)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, for each of the landfill sites at issue, namely those in Vélez Rubio (Almería), Alcolea de Cinca (Huesca), Sariñena (Huesca), Tamarite de Litera (Huesca), Somontano — Barbastro (Huesca), Barranco de Sedases (Fraga, Huesca), Barranco Seco (Puntallana, La Palma), Jumilla (Murcia), y Legazpia (Guipuzkoa), Sierra Valleja (Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz), Carretera Pantano del Rumblar (Baños de la Encina, Jaén), Barranco de la Cueva (Bélmez de la Moraleda, Jaén), Cerrajón (Castillo de Locution, Jaén), Las Canters (Jimena y Bed mar, Jaén), Hoya del Pine (Siles, Jaén), Bellavista (Finca El Coronel, Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), El Patarín (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), Carretera de Arahal-Morón de la Frontera (Arahal, Sevilla), Carretera de Almadén de la Plata (Cazalla de la Sierra, Sevilla), El Chaparral (Écija, Sevilla), Carretera A-92, KM 57,5 (Morón de la Frontera, Sevilla), Carretera 3118 Fuente Leona — Cumbres mayores (Colina Barragona, Huelva), Llanos del Campo (Grazalema — Benamahoma, Cádiz), Andrada Baja (Alcalá de Guadaira, Sevilla), Carretera de los Villares (Andújar, Jaén), La Chacona (Cabra, Córdoba) and el Chaparral — La Sombrerera (Puerto Serrano, Cádiz), the measures necessary to close as soon as possible, pursuant to the first line of Article 7(g) and Article 13 of Directive 1999/31, the sites which had not been granted, under Article 8 of that directive, a permit to continue to operate, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations, in respect of each of those landfills, under Article 14(b) of that directive;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret by order of that court of 20 February 1996 in the cases of Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (HK), acting on behalf of Berit Høj Pedersen, v. the Fællesforening for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (FDB), acting on behalf of Kvickly Skive; HK, acting on behalf of Bettina Andresen, v. Dansk Tandlægeforening, acting on behalf of Jørgen Bagner, a dental practitioner; HK, acting on behalf of Tina Pedersen, v. Dansk Tandlægeforening, acting on behalf of Jørgen Rasmussen, a dental practitioner; and Kristelig Funktionær-Organisation, acting on behalf of Pia Sørensen v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Hvitfeldt Guld og Sølv ApS. (Case C-66/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96           1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 133/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret                   he cannot provide work for the pregnant employee,
by order of that court of 20 February 1996 in the cases of                    despite the fact that the latter is not unfit for work ,
Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark
(HK ), acting on behalf of Berit Høj Pedersen, v. the                 and in situations 1 to 3 and 6 the State guarantees that the
Fællesforening for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (FDB ),                   pregnant employee will receive the same rate of benefit as
acting on behalf of Kvickly Skive; HK, acting on behalf of            she would receive if on sick leave, whereas in situations 4
Bettina Andresen, v. Dansk Tandlægeforening, acting on                and 5 no State benefit is received, and the employer,
behalf ofJørgen B agner, a dental practitioner; HK, acting on         moreover, is required under national legislation to provide
behalf of Tina Pedersen, v. Dansk Tandlægeforening, acting            full pay during illness ?
on behalf of Jørgen Rasmussen, a dental practitioner; and
Kristelig Funktionær-Organisation, acting on behalf of Pia            (') Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
Sørensen v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of                     approximation of the laws of the Member States of relating to
                 Hvitfeldt Guld og Sølv ApS.                                the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women
                         ( Case C-66/96 )                                   ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).
                                                                      ( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
                           ( 96/C 133/35 )                                  implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
                                                                            women as regards access to employment, vocational training
                                                                            and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14. 2 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      1976 , p . 40 ).
European Communities by order of the So- og Handelsret                ( 3 ) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
( Maritime and Commercial Court) of 20 February 1996 ,                      introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 March                        safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of ( 1 ) Handels- og            have recently given birth or are breastfeeding ( tenth individual
Kontorfunktionasrernes Forbund i Danmark (Union of                          Directive within the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive
Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark ) ( HK ),                      89/39 1 /EEC ) ( OJ No L 348 , 28 . 11 . 1992, p . 1 ).
acting on behalf of Berit Hoj Pedersen, Bettina Andresen
and Tina Pedersen, v. the Fadlesforening for Danmarks
Brugsforeninger (Joint Association of Danish Cooperative
Societies ) ( FDB ), acting on behalf of Kvickly Skive, and
Dansk Tandlsegeforening ( Danish Association of Dental
Practitioners ), acting on behalf of Jorgen Bagner and Jorgen         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht,
Rasmussen, dental practitioners, and ( 2 ) Kristelig                  Arnhem, by judgment of that court of 4 March 1996
Funktionasr-Organisation ( Christian Commercial and                   in the case of Albany International BV v. Stichting
Clerical Employees ' Organization ), acting on behalf of Pia                         Bedrij fspensioenfonds Textielindustrie
Sorensen, v. Dansk Handel & Service ( Danish Commercial
                                                                                Case C-67/96 )
and Service-Industries Association ), acting on behalf of
Hvitfeldt Guld og Solv ApS, on the following question:                                              ( 96/C 133/36 )
Does Community law, including Article 119 of the EC                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Treaty and Directives 75/117/EEC ( 1 ), 76/207/EEC (2) and            European Communities by a judgment of the
92/85/EEC ( 3 ), preclude national legislation from exempting         Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court), Arnhem, of 4 March
employers from the provision of pay to pregnant employees             1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
in cases where :                                                      11 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                      Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds
1 , the absence is attributable to the fact that the pregnancy        Textielindustrie on the following questions :
     substantially aggravates an illness that is otherwise
     unconnected to the pregnancy;                                    ( a ) Is an occupational pension scheme within the meaning
                                                                               of Article 1 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Wet betreffende verplichte
2 , the absence is attributable to an illness caused by the
                                                                              Deelneming in een Bedrijfspensioenfonds ( Law on
     pregnancy ;
                                                                               Compulsory Participation in an Occupational Pension
3 , the absence is attributable to the fact that the pregnancy                 Scheme ) an undertaking within the meaning of
     shows a morbid development and that continued work                       Articles 85 , 86 or 90 of the EC Treaty ?
     would create a risk for the health of the woman or her
     unborn child;                                                    ( b ) If so, is the fact of making membership of the
                                                                               occupational pension scheme for industrial
4, the absence is attributable to general pregnancy-related                    undertakings compulsory a measure adopted by a
     inconveniences that occur in any normal pregnancy and,                   Member State which nullifies the useful effect of the
     moreover, do not result in incapacity for work;                          competition rules applicable to undertakings ?
5 , the absence results from a medical opinion intended to            (c ) If question ( b ) must be answered in the negative, can
     protect the unborn child but which is not based on an                     other circumstances render compulsory membership
     actual morbid condition or special risks for the unborn                   incompatible with Article 90 of the Treaty, and if so,
     child;                                                                   which ?
6 , the absence is attributable to the fact that the employer,
     on the basis of the pregnancy alone, takes the view that


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2000 in Case C-260/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll —Failure to levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and 1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 316/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 12 September 2000
                                                                                of 12 September 2000
in Case C-260/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                                                                           in Case C-366/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Cour d’Appel de Lyon): Yannick Geffroy and Casino
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT
                                                                                France SNC (1)
Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll —Failure to
levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and
       1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)
                                                                           (Free movement of goods — National legislation on the
                                                                           marketing of a product — Description and labelling —
                          (2000/C 316/19)
                                                                           National legislation requiring use of the official language of
                                                                                the Member State — Directive 79/112/EEC)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/20)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-260/98: Commission of the European Communities                                        (Language of the case: French)
(Agents: D. Gouloussis and H. Michard) v Hellenic Republic
(Agents: P. Mylonopoulos and A. Rokofyllou) — application
for a declaration that, by failing to subject to value added tax
tolls paid by users as consideration for the service of providing
access to motorways and related infrastructures, contrary to               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                                  in the European Court Reports)
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
                                                                           In Case C-366/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
and by thereby avoiding payment of the own resources
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour d’Appel de
and interest due under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
                                                                           Lyon, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision
                                                                           pending before that court between Yannick Geffroy and Casino
88/376/EEC, Euratom, on the system of the Community’s own
                                                                           France SK — on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC
resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC,
                                                                           Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) and Article 14
Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive
                                                                           of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on
uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources
                                                                           the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
accruing from value added tax (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 9), the
                                                                           to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                           (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Commission Directive
EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
                                                                           93/102/EC of 16 November 1993 (OJ 1993 L 291, p. 14), —
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), L. Sevón
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
                                                                           J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, V. Skou-
                                                                           L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
ris and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Lou-
                                                                           chet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges, D. Ruiz-
terman-Hubeau and H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrators, for
                                                                           Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2000, in
                                                                           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September
which it:
                                                                           2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           1.    Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear                  EC) and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
      the costs.                                                                 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                                Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and
                                                                                advertising of foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Directive
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                                93/102/EC of 16 November 1993, do not preclude a national
                                                                                provision from requiring that the labelling of foodstuffs and the
                                                                                labelling methods used must not mislead the purchaser or
                                                                                consumer, particularly as to the characteristics of those food-
                                                                                stuffs.


title: Case T-236/16: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2017 — Biogena Naturprodukte v EUIPO (ZUM wohl) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ZUM wohl — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reference to statement submitted to the Board of Appeal reproduced in the application — Evidence annexed to the request for a hearing)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2017 — Biogena Naturprodukte v EUIPO (ZUM wohl)
   (Case T-236/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ZUM wohl - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reference to statement submitted to the Board of Appeal reproduced in the application - Evidence annexed to the request for a hearing))
   (2017/C 256/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Biogena Naturprodukte GmbH & Co. KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer and G. Hermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (case R 1982/2015-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign ZUM wohl as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Biogena Naturprodukte GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Action brought on 2 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-55/95)

text:
No C 101 /4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 4 . 95
( Fourth Chamber ) of 14 February 1995 , which was received             Action brought on 4 March 1995 by the French Republic
at the Court Registry on 1 March 1995 , for a preliminary                  aginst the Commission of the European Communities
ruling in the case of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales                                   (Case C-57/95 )
pour Travailleurs Indépendants against Hans Kemmler on
the following question:                                                                          ( 95/C 101/10 )
is the effect of Articles 48 , 51 , 52 and 59 of the Treaty of          An action against the Commission of the European
Rome that before 1 July 1982 a Member State ( in this case              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Belgium) could not require nationals of another Member                  European Communities on 4 March 1995 by the French
State (in this case the former Federal Republic of Germany)             Republic, represented by Edwige Belliard and Claude
who were pursuing the same independent occupation both                  Chavance, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
in its territory and in the former Federal Republic of                  Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9 Boulevard Prince
                                                                        Henri .
Germany, where they were resident and subject to the social
security scheme, to pay contributions to the Belgian social
security scheme for independent occupations, having regard              The applicant claims that the Court should :
to the fact that such contributions could not entitle them to
any additional social security cover ?                                  — declare null and void the Commission communication
                                                                            94/C 360/08 on the freedom of management and
                                                                            investment of funds held by institutions for retirement
                                                                            provisions O ,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
Action brought on 2 March 1995 by the Commission of the                     proceedings .
     European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                           ( Case C-55/95 )                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 95/C 101/09 )
                                                                        Admissibility of the application
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before               The French Government requests the Court of Justice to
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     examine the contested communication in the light of
2 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                          its settled case-law, according to which, an action for
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal                 annulment lies against all measures, whatever their nature
Adviser, and Blanca Rodriguez Galindo, of the Legal                     and form, adopted by the institutions and intended to
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               produce legal effects .
office of Giorgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Article 190 of the EC Treaty and of the principle of legal
                                                                        certainty
1 . declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the
      necessary measures for compliance with Article 3 et seq.          The French Government considers that, by adopting the
      of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990              communication in question, the Commission has exceeded
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States             its powers .
      relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of
      the use of motor vehicles (*) has not fulfilled its               The contested act, in so far as it imposes new obligations on
      obligations under that directive;                                 the Member States, should have been founded on a specific
                                                                        legal basis . The ambiguity concerning the actual scope of the
2, order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        obligations it lays down is contrary to the principle of legal
                                                                        certainty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Content of the aet
The binding nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 189 and first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC               The French Government notes that the contested act would
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the necessary                    have the effect of imposing on the Member States, in an
measures to adapt its domestic law to directives within the             unequivocally mandatory manner, objectives and new legal
period indicated for implementation and to communicate                  obligations as regards supervision of pension funds. Such
such measures forthwith to the Commission. That period,                 obligations would logically constrain certain Member States
laid down by Article 6 of the Directive, expired on                     to amend their internal legislation in force, which would be
31 December 1992 without Spain having adopted the                       an unexpected outcome of an act which, in principle, lacks
necessary provisions .                                                  any legal status.
f 1 ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990 , p . 33 .                            (») OJ No C 360, 17. 12 . 1994, p . 7.


title: Case T-546/13: Action brought on 20 October 2013 — Šumelj and Others v European Union

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/34

         Action brought on 20 October 2013 — Šumelj and Others v European Union
   (Case T-546/13)
   2013/C 367/60
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Applicants: Ante Šumelj (Zagreb, Croatia), Dubravka Bašljan (Zagreb), Đurđica Crnčević (Sv. Ivan Zelina, Croatia), Miroslav Lovreković (Križevci, Croatia) (represented by: Mato Krmek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               Deliver an interlocutory order whereby it declares that the European Commission has breached its obligation to monitor the implementation of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, under Article 36 of the Act of Accession (Annex VII, point 1), as regards the introduction of the public enforcement officers’ service in the legal system of the Republic of Croatia.

               —

               Order the European Union to make good the (material and non-material) damage suffered by the applicants on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Union, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

               —

               Order the European Union to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

               —

               In addition, the applicants submit that the General Court should suspend the deliberations on the amount of the claim until the interlocutory order sought in the present proceedings becomes definitive.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 36 of the Act of Accession (Annex VII, point 1), which forms an integral part of the Treaty between the Member States of the European Union and the Republic of Croatia concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (Narodne novine — Međunarodni ugovori no 2/12 (Official Gazette — International Treaties)), by failing to prevent the repeal of the legislation establishing and regulating the profession of public enforcement officer, which the Republic of Croatia had adopted during the negotiations for accession to the European Union. Article 36 of the Act of Accession requires the Commission to monitor all commitments undertaken by Croatia in the negotiations on accession to the European Union, including, therefore, the legal obligations undertaken by the Republic of Croatia to establish a public enforcement officers’ service and to establish all the conditions necessary for the full implementation of that service in the Croatian legal system by 1 January 2012 at the latest.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that, by the above infringement, the European Commission directly caused damage to the applicants, who had been appointed public enforcement officers and who had legitimate expectations of entering into service on 1 January 2012.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that, by failing to meet its obligations under the Treaty of Accession, the Commission seriously and manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion, and that, by frustrating the legitimate expectations of the applicants (appointed public enforcement officers), it caused the applicants considerable material and non-material damage which it must make good in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.


title: Case T-323/99: Action brought on 15 November 1999 by INMA, Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini, SpA (in liquidation) and Itainvest SPA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/32               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           19.2.2000
Action brought on 11 November 1999 by Franz Lemaître                      Industrie Navali Meccaniche Affini, SpA (in liquidation) and
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Itainvest SPA, represented by Antonio Tizzano, Gian Michele
                                                                          Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Naples Bar, with an
                        (Case T-317/99)                                   address for service at 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels.
                         (2000/C 47/56)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul Commission decision C(1999) 2532 final of 20 July
                   (Language of the case: French)                              1999;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 — order the Commission of the European Communities to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     pay the costs.
European Communities on 11 November 1999 by Franz
Lemaître resident in Céroux-Mousty, Belgium, represented by
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire                Pleas in law and main arguments
SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                                                                          The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Commission decision C(1999) 2532 final of 20 July 1999
                                                                          concerning aid granted by Italy to the INMA shipyard through
— annul the Commission’s decisions dated 16 February 1999,                Itainvest (formerly GEPI) public holding company, notified by
    12 March 1999 and 24 March 1999, respectively refusing                the Italian Government to the Commission on 3 September
    to award him the expatriation and installation allowances             1999.
    and determining his place of origin at the time of his
    recruitment to be Luxembourg;
                                                                          By that decision the Commission declared unlawful the action
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                               of the public group Itainvest in respect of:
                                                                          — guarantees for the construction of vessels for ‘Corsica
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Ferries’, ‘Pugliola’, ‘Tirrenia’ and ‘Stolt Nielsen’; and
The action concerns, first, the defendant’s refusal to award the          — compensation to the tune of LIT 120,4 thousand million
applicant the expatriation allowance and, secondly, its refusal                for losses made by the INMA shipyard in 1997-1998.
to award him the installation allowance. In support of his
claims the applicant argues that his habitual residence was
outside Belgium when he entered the Commission’s service in               The Commission came to that conclusion on the basis of the
Brussels and that he was therefore entitled to the expatriation           following:
allowance. It follows that it was also appropriate to award him
the installation allowance.                                               — guarantees for construction of the vessels should have
                                                                               been set, in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive
                                                                               90/684/EEC and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 1540/98, below the ceiling for aid for individual
                                                                               contracts under Article 4(1) of the directive, expressed as a
                                                                               percentage of the annual turnover of the recipient of the
                                                                               aid itself;
Action brought on 15 November 1999 by INMA, Industrie                     — cover for loss constitutes operating aid which, according
Navali Meccaniche Affini, SpA (in liquidation) and Itain-                      to Article 5 of Directive 90/684/EEC, should also be below
vest SPA against Commission of the European Communi-                           that ceiling. In the absence therefore of a restructuring
                               ties                                            plan, operating aid in the form of loss compensation
                                                                               is also incompatible with Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
                        (Case T-323/99)                                        No 1540/98 and cannot be considered to be rescue aid
                                                                               under Community law.
                         (2000/C 47/57)
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants allege:
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        — infringement of Article 7 of the EC Treaty, of Article 1(d)
                                                                               of Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      shipbuilding (1), and of Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     1540/98 on aid to shipbuilding (2). The applicants are of
European Communities on 15 November 1999 by INMA,                              the view in this regard in particular that the defendant
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/33
     failed to observe the principle of the investor operating in         — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
     a market economy in considering that the actions of
     Itainvest could not be compared to the conduct of a private
     undertaking since the return on profit was negative from
     the beginning. According to the applicants, that error of            Pleas in law and main arguments
     assessment also concerns the guarantees offered by Itainv-
     est for the performance of individual contracts, as well as
     injections of capital into INMA itself;
                                                                          The applicant in the present case is one of the world’s
                                                                          leading scientists involved in research and clinical trials on
— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons              thalassaemia and its treatment. She has engaged in the
     when adopting the relevant Community measures. In                    principal clinical trials for Ferriprox-Deferiprone (hereinafter
     particular, the Commission did not consider whether at               ‘deferiprone’). According to her, these trials indicate that the
     the time when the decision to give the guarantees to and             drug may have significant adverse effects on human health.
     inject capital into INMA was adopted there were any valid            She claims that, as a result of the contested decision granting a
     economic or financial reasons to justify Itainvest’s course          marketing authorisation for deferiprone, there is a risk of
     of action. The defendant further failed to examine individu-         severe damage to health as well as damaging consequences to
     ally the steps taken and assess their nature in the context          her own professional reputation.
     of the economic situation reigning at the material time,
     preferring instead to rely on mere assumptions.
                                                                          The applicant contends that, contrary to the conclusions of
(1) OJ 1990 L 380, p. 27.                                                 the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
(2) OJ 1998 L 121, p. 1.                                                  (EMEA) and the Commission:
                                                                          — the safety of deferiprone depends first and foremost upon
                                                                              its effectiveness: if it is not effective at removing excess
                                                                              iron from the bodies of patients with thalassaemia, the
                                                                              patients who take it will be at risk of iron overload and
                                                                              premature death from iron-induced cardiac and liver
                                                                              dysfunction;
Action brought on 19 November 1999 by Nancy Fern
Olivieri against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          — there is evidence to suggest that deferiprone is toxic to the
munities and the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                                                                              heart and liver and that its use carries considerable dangers
                        Medicinal Products
                                                                              with regard to hepatic fibrosis and the development and
                                                                              progression of cardiac disease;
                          (Case T-326/99)
                                                                          — Further human trials of deferiprone should await the
                           (2000/C 47/58)                                     results of animal toxicity testing.
                    (Language of the case: English)                       The applicant submits that the contested decision and the
                                                                          revised opinion of the EMEA are unlawful because:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal              — the Commission and the EMEA committed errors of law,
Products was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                namely by failing to verify material facts in breach of
European Communities on 19 November 1999 by Nancy Fern                        Articles 7 and 11 of Regulation No 2309/93, after they
Olivieri, represented by Philippe Sands and Rebecca Haynes,                   had received evidence from the applicant that Apotex’s
Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  application for a marketing authorisation contained inac-
Chambers of Nathan & Noesen, 18 rue des Glacis, L-1628.                       curate and incomplete information on material issues;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — the Commission and the EMEA committed manifest errors
                                                                              in their assessment of the application for a marketing
— annul in its entirety the Commission’s decision of                          authorisation, which included
     25 August granting marketing authorisation for the med-
     icinal product for human use known as Ferriprox-
     Deferiprone;                                                             — errors of fact and
— annul in its entirety the revised opinion of the European
     Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products dated                    — errors of law by failing to consider information relevant
     23 June 1999;                                                                 to the application;


title: Case C-336/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Lyon, France) — Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects v Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s.à.r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Polishing pads intended exclusively for semiconductor wafer-polishing machines — Tariff headings 3919 and 8466 (or 8486 ) — Definition of ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’ )

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Lyon, France) — Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects v Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s.à.r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch
   (Case C-336/11) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Polishing pads intended exclusively for semiconductor wafer-polishing machines - Tariff headings 3919 and 8466 (or 8486) - Definition of ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’)
   2012/C 295/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Lyon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects

      Defendants: Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s.à.r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Lyon — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 286, p. 1) — Polishing pads intended exclusively for semiconductor wafer-polishing machines — Tariff headings 3919 and 8466 — Definition of ‘parts’ or ‘interchangeable tools’ — Exemption — Reimbursement of customs duties

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the successive versions of the following regulations, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87: Commission Regulations (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003; No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004; No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005; and No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that polishing pads intended for a polishing machine for working semiconductor materials — as such coming under tariff heading 8464 (or heading 8486 from 1 January 2007) — imported separately from the machine, in the form of discs perforated in the centre, made up of a hard polyurethane layer, a layer of polyurethane foam, an adhesive layer and a protective plastic film, which do not contain any metal part or any abrasive substance and are used to polish ‘wafers’, in combination with an abrasive liquid, and must be replaced at a frequency determined by their level of wear, come under subheading 3919 90 10, as self-adhesive flat shapes, other than squares or rectangles, made of plastic.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case F-114/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2006 — Combescot v Commission (Officials — Appeal — Time-limits — Implied rejection — Explicit refusal, notified at a later stage, to reopen the period for lodging an appeal — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/65

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2006 — Combescot v Commission
   (Case F-114/05) (1)

   (Officials - Appeal - Time-limits - Implied rejection - Explicit refusal, notified at a later stage, to reopen the period for lodging an appeal - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 294/128)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Combescot (Popayán, Colombia) (represented by: A. Maritati and V. Messa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and M. Velardo, Agents, assisted by S. Corongiu, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision to reassign the applicant, in the interests of the service, from the Commission's delegation in Guatemala to its Brussels headquarters under the 2003 rotation scheme and, secondly, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 22 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-422/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005)


title: Case C-21/07: Action brought on 23 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/23

         Action brought on 23 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-21/07)
   (2007/C 56/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs of this Application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 11 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 35, p.28.


title: Case T-305/01: Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Thalassa Seafoods SA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.3.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 56/13
—     in most cases, the extermination of the entire herd where          —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
      a cow is found to be infected;
—     a decrease in consumption of beef and a lack of consumer
      confidence resulting from the unpopularity of veal in the
      market, with the consequent direct economic cost arising           Pleas in law and main arguments
      from the repercussions of reports in the media of the
      discovery of each new case of mad cow disease or of
      persons afflicted by Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in any               The applicant in the present case, a company incorporated
      Member State of the European Union; and                            under Belgian law carrying on business as importer into the
                                                                         Community of frozen fishery products originating in China,
—     the removal of the spinal column in calves aged over               has brought an action seeking compensation for damage
      12 months.                                                         allegedly suffered as a result of the immediate entry into force
                                                                         of Commission Decision 2000/86/EC of 21 December 1999
                                                                         laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery
The applicants maintain that the abovementioned damage, to               products originating in China and repealing Decision
which must be added the collateral and non-material damage               97/368/EC (1), with no transitional period applicable to goods
with which they have also been faced, results primarily from a           covered by contracts in force at the date of its publication.
lack of action, alternatively tardy and inadequate action, on            Annex B of that decision fundamentally amended the list of
the part of the Council and the Commission, which allowed                list of Chinese establishments approved for the export of
BSE to develop into the most serious agricultural and food               fishery products to the Community to such an extent that
crisis to affect the Union since its creation. The absence of a          almost all the suppliers with whom the applicant had con-
resolute policy to control that disease with a view to its total         cluded its contracts were no longer listed.
eradication, which allowed it to spread from the United
Kingdom throughout Europe, constitutes an unlawful act on
the part of the Community institutions in question, since those
institutions had the requisite powers, from the appearance of            From September 1999 to January 2000, the applicant com-
the very first signs of the crisis, to adopt all the legal measures      pany concluded with several Chinese suppliers a number of
needed to resolve it.                                                    purchase contracts for several containers of frozen prawns
                                                                         valued in excess of USD 2 000 000. Those contracts all
                                                                         stipulated that the goods were to be shipped between the end
                                                                         of September 1999 and mid-April 2000.
                                                                         In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:
Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Thalassa Sea-                       —     that the Commission acted wrongly inasmuch as Decision
foods SA against Commission of the European Communi-                           2000/86/EC was not published until 2 February 2000,
                                ties                                           although it was of immediate application and should
                                                                               therefore have been published without delay, that is to
                         (Case T-305/01)                                       say by 22 December 1999 at the latest, in order to allow
                                                                               traders to take all appropriate measures in order to
                                                                               minimise their losses;
                          (2002/C 56/25)
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of proportionality in that the
                                                                               Commission itself, on the one hand, introduced tran-
                                                                               sitional measures, by Decision 2000/300/EC of 18 April
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      2000 amending Decision 2000/86/EC(2) and, on the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     other, published on 11 September 2000 a new list in
European Communities on 7 December 2001 by Thalassa                            which the supplier of the goods under the purchase
Seafoods SA, whose registered office is at Antwerp (Belgium),                  contracts which were annulled was again admitted as an
represented by Jean-Pierre Brusseleers, lawyer.                                approved establishment.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ 2000 L 26, p. 26.
—     order the Commission to pay it EUR 256 179,10 in                   (2) OJ 2000 L 97, p. 15.
      damages, together with interest at the statutory rate of
      8 % per annum as from the date on which notice was
      served;