title: Case C-422/99: Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
22.1.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 20/13
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission                       Giacinto Bisogni, acting as Agents, with an address for service
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                          Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           (Case C-421/99)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (2000/C 20/26)
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or, in
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 any event, by failing to communicate the laws, regulations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the
represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto                 Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives
Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to its Legal                     90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     to a competitive environment in telecommunications (1),
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                            that directive; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or at any rate to
     communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations
     and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
     with Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 (1)
     on the incineration of hazardous waste, the Italian Republic
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                          Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                          directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                          required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                          their transposition. That time-limit expired on 31 December
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           1997 without the Italian Republic having brought into force
                                                                          the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),                   referred to in the Commission’s application.
according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits
laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit           (1) OJ 1997 L 295, p. 23.
in the present case expired on 31 December 1996 without the
Italian Republic having adopted the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the directive referred to in the Com-
mission’s application.
(1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 34.
                                                                          Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission                                               (Case C-423/99)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 20/28)
                           (Case C-422/99)
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                            (2000/C 20/27)
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October
                                                                          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, and by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October                Giacinto Bisogni, acting as Agents, with an address for service
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, and by              Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-183/09: Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/6

         Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-183/09)
   2009/C 167/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafillou and I. Dimitriou)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with certain provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, or in any event by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 412(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/112/EC into national law expired on 1 January 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 347 of 11.12.2006, p. 1.


title: Case T-11/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/41

         Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)
   (Case T-11/14)
   2014/C 135/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2013 given in Case R 441/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pianissimo’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 11 102 266

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the mark applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  17 November 2005  in Case C-131/05: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 17 November 2005
   in Case C-131/05: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC)
   (2006/C 36/35)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-131/05, action for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 21 March 2005 pursuant to Article 226 EC, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. van Beek, assisted by F. Louis and A. Capobianco, lawyers) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Nwaokolo) — the Court (Fifth Chamber Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and with Article 12(2) and Article 13(1), both read in conjunction with Article 2(1), of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under these Directives.

               2.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132 of 28.5.2005.


title: Case C-271/02: Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 289/6                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission                        —     Council Regulations (EC) No 3362/94 (3) of 20 December
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                            1994 and (EC) No 3074/95 ( 4) of 22 December 1995
                              Sweden                                          fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
                                                                              the total allowable catches for 1995 and 1996 and certain
                                                                              conditions under which they may be fished,
                         (Case C-271/02)
                                                                        —     Council Regulations (EC) No 748/95 (5) of 31 March
                         (2002/C 289/10)                                      1995 and (EC) No 3076/95 ( 6) allocating, for 1995 and
                                                                              1996, certain catch quotas between Member States for
                                                                              vessels fishing in the Norwegian exclusive economic zone
                                                                              and the fishing zone around Jan Mayen,
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July             —     Council Regulations (EC) No 3370/94 (7) of 20 December
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           1994, (EC) No 3082/95 ( 8) of 21 December 1995, (EC)
represented by T. van Rijn and C. Tufvesson, acting as Agents,                No 3084/95 (9) of 21 December 1995 and (EC) No 3089/
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    95 ( 10) of 21 December 1995, allocating, for 1995 and
                                                                              1996, catch quotas between Member States for vessels
                                                                              fishing in Latvian, Estonian or Polish waters.
The Commission claims that the Court
—     should declare that the Kingdom of Sweden:
                                                                        In addition Sweden has failed to ensure that Community
                                                                        legislation on the conservation of species is complied with by
      1.    by failing to lay down detailed provisions regarding        monitoring fishing, by carrying out adequate inspections of
            the quotas allocated to Sweden for the 1995 and             landings and recording catches and by imposing administrative
            1996 fishing years,                                         or criminal penalties on the master of the vessel or other
                                                                        persons responsible. There has thus been significant repeated
                                                                        overfishing over two years which means that the overfishing
      2.    by failing to ensure compliance with Community              must be a consequence of the failure by the Swedish authorities
            legislation on conservation by monitoring fishing,
                                                                        to discharge their monitoring obligations.
            by carrying out adequate inspections of landings and
            recording catches and by imposing administrative or
            criminal penalties on the master of the vessel or
            other persons responsible,
                                                                        Sweden has failed provisionally to prohibit fishing from vessels
                                                                        flying the Swedish flag or registered in Sweden where the
      3.    by failing provisionally to prohibit fishing from           fishing quotas allocated for the 1995 and 1996 fishing years
            fishing vessels flying its flag or registered in the
                                                                        were exhausted.
            State when the quotas allocated to Sweden for the
            1995 and 1996 fishing years were deemed to be
            exhausted,
                                                                        Moreover, Sweden has not taken appropriate measures to
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(2) of
                                                                        prevent fishing quotas from being exceeded, despite the fact
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 ( 1) of 20 December
                                                                        that Article 9(2) of the basic regulation requires Sweden to do
      1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and
                                                                        so.
      aquaculture and under Articles 2, 21(1) and 31 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 ( 2) of 12 October 1993
      establishing a control system applicable to the common
      fisheries policy;
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 389 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                        (2 ) OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993, p. 1.
—     shall be ordered to pay the costs.                                (3 ) OJ L 363 of 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                        (4 ) OJ L 330 of 30.12.1995, p. 1.
                                                                        (5 ) OJ L 74 of 1.4.1995, p. 18.
                                                                        (6 ) OJ L 330 of 30.12.1995, p. 51.
                                                                        (7 ) OJ L 363 of 31.12.1994, p. 90.
                                                                        (8 ) OJ L 330 of 30.12.1995, p. 76.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (9 ) OJ L 330 of 30.12.1995, p. 86.
                                                                        (10) OJ L 330 of 30.12.1995, p. 106.
The Commission states that Sweden has, on a large number of
occasions, exceeded the fishing quotas for the 1995 and 1996
fishing years allocated in the annexes to:


title: Case C-77/07: Order of the President of the Court of 2 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-77/07) (1)

   (2007/C 315/59)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 23.4.2005.


title: Case T-231/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2007 — ITT Manufacturing Enterprises v OHIM — ITT Trademark & Trade (I.T.T.)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2007 — ITT Manufacturing Enterprises v OHIM — ITT Trademark & Trade (I.T.T.)
   (Case T-231/07) (1)

   (2007/C 315/83)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Action brought on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-203/97)

text:
12 . 7. 97                      EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 212/23
            terms or conditions not expressly mentioned                       Action brought on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of
            therein ?                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
     ( b ) If so :                                                                                ( Case C-203/97)
             (i)       Can such terms or conditions be formulated                                           ( 97/C 212/43 )
                       independently by the authorities of a Member
                       State ?
                                                                              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             ( ii ) May quantitative conditions — whether or
                                                                              Communities on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                       not based on Decision No 128 ( ] ) — relating
                                                                              European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
                       to the activities pursued in the different
                                                                              Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                       Member States, turnover and number of
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                       employees be imposed with regard to the
                                                                              Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
                       words ' undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                              254, Kirchberg.
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation
                       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
                                                                              The Commission claims that the Court should :
             ( iii ) In that context may the conditon be imposed
                       that the activities of the employer in the             — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                       different Member States be exactly the same ?                  period the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission       Directive     94/1 3/EC ( ! ), the  Federal
             ( iv ) If the conditions mentioned in ( ii ) and ( iii )                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                       cannot be imposed, what conditions may be                      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and
                       imposed ?
             ( v ) Must such conditions — where imposed — be                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                       communicated to the employer before the
                       commencement of the employment ?                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support;
      (c ) If not:                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                              put forward in Case C-l 86/97 ( 2 ); the relevant time limit
              (i )     Do the implementing institutions have a                expired on 1 January 1995 .
                       discrection in interpreting the words
                       'undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                               (') OJ No L 92 , 9 . 4 . 1994, p. 27 .
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation       ( 2 ) See page 16 of this Official Journal .
                        ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , on the basis of the
                       judgments of the Court of Justice in Case
                        C-l 9/67 (Van der Vecht ) and Case C-35/70
                        ( Manpower )?
              ( ii ) If so, what is its extent ?
                                                                               Action brought on 29 May 1997 by the Portuguese
                                                                               Republic against the Commission of the European
2 . ( a ) Is a certificate issued by the competent institution                                                Communities
              of a Member State in accordance with Article 11
                                                                                ( Case C-204/97 )
              ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 binding on
              the authorities of another Member State in all                                                 ( 97/C 212/44 )
              circumstances as regards the legal consequences it
              determines ?
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
       ( b ) If not:                                                            the European Communities on 29 May 1997 by the
               (i)       In what circumstances is it not ?
                                                                                Portuguese Republic, represented by Luis Fernandes, Dr
                                                                                Angelo Sei^a Neves and Dr. Carlos Botelho Moniz, acting
               ( ii ) Can the evidential value of the certificate be           as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                         rebutted by the authorities of a Member State          the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                         without involving the institution which issued
                         the certificate ?                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
               ( iii ) If not, in what must that involvement consist ?          — annul the Decision of the Commission of 6 November
                                                                                1996 on State aid No 703/95 — France, published in
 (') Decision of the Administrative Commission on Social Security                      the Official Journal of the European Communities
     of Migrant Workers .                                                              No C 70 of 6 March 1997, p. 14;
                                                                                — order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.


title: Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland) and the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Digital Rights Ireland Ltd (C-293/12) v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General, and Kärntner Landesregierung, Michael Seitlinger, Christof Tschohl and Others (C-594/12) (Electronic communications — Directive 2006/24/EC — Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of such services — Validity — Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland) and the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Digital Rights Ireland Ltd (C-293/12) v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General, and Kärntner Landesregierung, Michael Seitlinger, Christof Tschohl and Others (C-594/12)
   (Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12) (1)

   ((Electronic communications - Directive 2006/24/EC - Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of such services - Validity - Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))
   2014/C 175/07
   Languages of the case: English and German

      Referring courts

   High Court of Ireland, Verfassungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Digital Rights Ireland Ltd (C-293/12), Kärntner Landesregierung, Michael Seitlinger, Christof Tschohl and others (C-594/12)

      Defendants: Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General (C-293/12)

      intervener: Irish Human Rights Commission

      Re:

   (Case C-293/12)
   Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54) — Limitation of the rights of the applicant with regard to mobile telephony — Compatibility with Article 5(4) TEU and with Article 21 TFEU — Compatibility with Articles 7, 8, 11 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
   (Case C-594/12)
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verfassungsgerichtshof — Validity of Articles 3 to 9 of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54) in the light of Articles 7, 9 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 7, 8, 52 and 53 thereof, of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) — Constitutional application concerning the possible unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Austrian Federal Law on Telecommunications transposing Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC is invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

      OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-10/07: Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/6

         Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-10/07)
   (2007/C 69/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren, G. Rozet, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2002/74/EC expired on 8 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.


title: Case T-188/00: Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.10.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/15
The applicant points out in that regard that, one year before it         —     infringement of the Treaty, on account of the contradic-
acquired Massalombarda Colombani, an inspection had been                       tory nature of the reasons given in the contested decision.
carried out jointly by the Italian Finance Ministry and the
Commission at the premises of that company for the purposes
of verifying the implementation of the EAGGF project referred            (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1.
to above. Certain irregularities were discovered during the
course of that inspection. The following year (again, prior to
the acquisition by Conserve Italia), various further irregularities
were ascertained. In consequence of those irregularities estab-
lished in 1994, the defendant proceeded in 1997 to discon-
tinue one of the four projects checked (that relating to the
Massalombarda plant).
                                                                         Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Comité International
                                                                         de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
By the contested decision, the Commission has now withdrawn
the aid for project No 9.
                                                                                (Case T-188/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 285/28)
The applicant points out that the situation at issue has arisen
not as a result of any conduct or acts on the part of the
applicant, which now finds itself — solely in consequence of                                 (Language of the case: English)
the acquisition and subsequent amalgamation with Massalom-
barda — formally in dispute with the Commission, but rather
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
as a result of a project organised previously by an earlier
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
company with which the applicant had no connection what-
                                                                         European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Comité Inter-
ever. Despite this, the circumstances surrounding the EAGGF
                                                                         national de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (Brussels),
projects of Massalombarda threaten to frustrate the investment
                                                                         represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Mats Johnsson, of
made by Conserve Italia, which it cannot recoup or recover
                                                                         Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
from the vendor.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     annul decision SG(2000)D/102503 of the European
                                                                               Commission contained in its letter of 20 March 2000 to
                                                                               the German Government relating to case N 406/99,
—     irregularities revealed in the Commission’s documenta-                   approving State aid to the undertaking Delon Filament
      tion;                                                                    GmbH;
                                                                         —     in case it finds the decision compatible with the Code on
                                                                               Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry, in terms of the
—     infringement of Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)                capacity reduction required, declare this Code unlawful
      No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down pro-                          under Article 241 EC;
      visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
      as regards coordination of the activities of the different
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the present
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
                                                                               proceedings.
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments (1). The Commission has
      infringed that provision in two respects:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      (a)   the irregularities ascertained are wholly irrelevant as      By adopting the contested decision the Commission declared
            regards compliance with the conditions relating to           State aid granted by the German authorities to the undertaking
            the date of commencement of the works, and the               Delon Filament GmbH compatible with the EC Treaty. The aid
            Commission has in any event based its own decision           in question is intended to finance investments in the polyamide
            on an analysis of irrelevant documents, without              fibre production in a plant in Rudolstadt, Thuringia (Germany).
            attaching any weight to more sound evidence made
            available to it;                                             The applicant is a representative of producers of man-made
                                                                         fibres. It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
                                                                         grounds:
      (b) having ascertained mere ‘irregularities’, it has with-
            drawn the aid, whereas it should, if anything, have          —     The Commission failed to explain how it has arrived at
            simply reduced it;                                                 the capacity figures for Delon quoted in the decision;
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
—    The Commission failed to examine the facts diligently by           Pleas in law and main arguments
     finding that the purported capacity reduction would
     have an effect on competition which would offset the
     detrimental effects of the State aid. The alleged ‘reduction’      The applicants are import/export undertakings established
     of capacity, as described in the contested decision, will          within the Community. Their parent company is Invest-Import
     have no impact on the competitiveness of Delon and will            AG, established in Belgrade. By the contested decision, the
     lead, on the contrary, to a de facto increase in capacity;         applicants have been placed on a list of undertakings which
                                                                        are ‘deemed to be owned or controlled by the Government of
                                                                        the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] or the Government
—    The aid in question was not accompanied by real and                of the Republic of Serbia’ (Article 2(2) of Council Regulation
     effective reductions in capacity as provided for in the            (EC) No 1294/1999 (1)). As a result of this, in accordance with
     Code on Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry (1) as well as        Article 3(1) of the regulation, the applicants’ accounts in
     in Article 87 EC.                                                  Germany and France are frozen.
                                                                        The applicants complain, first of all, that the contested
                                                                        regulation is contrary to Regulation No 1294/1999. They
(1) OJ 1996 C 94, p. 11.                                                maintain that the Commission has committed an error of law
                                                                        in subsuming the applicants under those companies and
                                                                        entities which, via their parent companies, are controlled by
                                                                        the Government or socially owned. On the contrary, the
                                                                        parent company of the applicants is privately owned by the
                                                                        employees of the undertaking.
                                                                        In addition, the applicants raise the objection, in accordance
                                                                        with Article 241 EC, that Regulation No 1294/1999, in the
                                                                        version contained in Regulation No 723/2000, is illegal,
                                                                        inasmuch as their parent company is wrongly treated by those
Action brought on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import                       legal instruments as being ‘socially-owned’.
und Export GmbH and Invest Commerce against the
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicants further plead infringement of their rights of
                                                                        defence and violation of the principle of proportionality.
                         (Case T-189/00)                                Lastly, they claim that the contested regulation contains an
                                                                        insufficient statement of reasons.
                         (2000/C 285/29)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 of 15 June 1999 concern-
                                                                            ing a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the
                                                                            Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and repealing Regulations
                 (Language of the case: German)                             (EC) No 1295/98 and (EC) No 1607/98 (OJ 1999 L 153, p. 63),
                                                                            in the version contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2000
                                                                            of 6 April 2000 (OJ 2000 L 86, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import
und Export GmbH, of Neuss (Federal Republic of Germany),
and Invest Commerce, of Paris, represented by Rolf Wägen-
baur, of Graf von Westphalen Fritze & Modest, Brussels.
                                                                        Action brought on 21 July 2000 by the Regione Siciliana
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
—    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 of                                             (Case T-190/00)
     29 May 2000 amending Annex II to Council Regulation
     (EC) No 1294/1999 concerning a freeze of funds and a
     ban on investment in relation to the Federal Republic of                                     (2000/C 285/30)
     Yugoslavia, in so far as it amends Annex II to Regulation
     No 1294/1999 so as to include the second applicant
     under the heading ‘France’ and the first applicant under                               (Language of the case: Italian)
     the heading ‘Germany’;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-678/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2017 — Siragusa v Council (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Leaving the service — Request to retire — Amendment of the Staff Regulations after that request had been made — Withdrawal of an earlier decision — Legal classification of the contested decision)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2017 — Siragusa v Council
   (Case T-678/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Leaving the service - Request to retire - Amendment of the Staff Regulations after that request had been made - Withdrawal of an earlier decision - Legal classification of the contested decision))
   (2017/C 357/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Sergio Siragusa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents) and European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and D. Nessaf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 July 2016, Siragusa v Council (F-124/15, EU:F:2016:147), seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 July 2016, Siragusa v Council (F-124/15);

               2.

               Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled on the present appeal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.


title: Case C-238/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2014  — FLSmidth & Co. A/S v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court — Duty to state reasons — Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary — Liability of the parent company for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary — Proportionality — Proceedings before the General Court — Adjudication within a reasonable time)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — FLSmidth & Co. A/S v European Commission
   (Case C-238/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court - Duty to state reasons - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Liability of the parent company for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Proportionality - Proceedings before the General Court - Adjudication within a reasonable time))
   2014/C 194/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: FLSmidth & Co. A/S (represented by: M. Dittmer, advokat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 in Case T-65/06 FLSmidth v Commission by which that court annulled in part Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial Bags) concerning a cartel consisting in the fixing of prices and sales quotas by geographic region, the sharing of orders by major customers, the organisation of concerted bidding in response to certain invitations to tender and the implementation of mechanisms for the exchange of information on sales volumes in the market for plastic industrial bags, and reduced the fine imposed on the appellant — Imputability of the unlawful conduct

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders FLSmidth & Co. A/S to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case T-351/08: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD — Earlier national word mark MATRATZEN — Relative ground for refusal — Evidence of use of the earlier mark — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD)
   (Case T-351/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD - Earlier national word mark MATRATZEN - Relative ground for refusal - Evidence of use of the earlier mark - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 221/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and (ii) Matratzen Concord GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case C-599/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2016 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/27

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2016 by Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council
   (Case C-599/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, extended composition) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-348/14 to the extent particularised in the Appeal, namely paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of that Judgment;

               —

               grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court to the extent particularised below namely:

                           —

                           to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) (‘the Second Amending Decision’);

                           —

                           to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP (2), and

                           —

                           to annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (3);

                     in so far as those measures concern the Appellant; and

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal and the application for annulment in the statement of modification.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the listing criterion in Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by the Second Amending Decision, is compatible with the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as stated in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. The General Court failed to recognise that the alleged acts of misappropriation of state funds must, at the very least, be the subject of an ongoing prosecution or other judicial proceedings in the country concerned, in circumstances where, as in this case, there is credible evidence that the country concerned does not have a consistent and adequate record of respect for fundamental principles of human rights or compliance with the rule of law.

               2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in (1) failing to conclude that there was credible evidence that Ukraine does not have a consistent and adequate record of human rights compliance or compliance with the rule of law and (2) describing certain Ukrainian authorities upon whose evidence the Council of the European Union relied as being a ‘high judicial authority’. The General Court further erred by not providing any reasons for its views regarding (1) and (2).

               3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law (1) in concluding that the inclusion of the Appellant’s name in the list, on the basis of a letter dated 30 December 2014 from the Ukrainian authorities, complies with the listing criterion and (2) in concluding that there was no manifest error of assessment by the Council regarding the Appellant’s inclusion in the list.

      (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 24, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 62, p. 25).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 62, p. 1).


title: Case T-306/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polymer-Chemie v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/39

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Polymer-Chemie v Commission
   (Case T-306/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/54)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-434/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion points — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Milbert and Others v Commission
   (Case T-434/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Refusal of promotion - Award of promotion points - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/90)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Alex Milbert (Hesperange, Luxembourg), Imre Czigàny (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium), José Manuel De la Cruz Gonzalez (Brussels, Belgium), Viviane Deveen (Overijse, Belgium), Mohammad Reza Fardoom (Roodt-sur-Syre, Luxembourg), Laura Gnemmi (Hünsdorf, Luxembourg), Marie-José Reinard (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Vassilios Stergiou (Kraainem, Belgium) and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, then F. Frabetti)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2003 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not contain the applicants' names, and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision and, secondly, in the alternative, for annulment of the allocation of promotion points made under the 2003 procedure in relation to the applicants
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case T-191/11: Action brought on 25 March 2011 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/23

         Action brought on 25 March 2011 — Automobili Lamborghini v OHIM — Miura Martínez (Miura)
   (Case T-191/11)
   2011/C 160/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA (Sant’Agata Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: P. Kather, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Miura Martínez (Sevilla, Spain) and Antonio José Miura Martínez (Sevilla, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2011 in Case R 161/2010-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Automobili Lamborghini Holding SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘Miura’, for goods and services in Classes 12, 14, 18, 25 and 28.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eduardo Miura Martínez and Antonio José Miura Martínez

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and national figurative marks, containing the word element ‘MIURA’, for goods and services in Classes 12, 14, 24, 25 and 39, the national word mark ‘MIURA’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25, and the name ‘MIURA’ used in the course of trade for the breeding of bulls.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since the interveners had not shown the use of the marks cited in opposition, and infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 since the applicant was not able to state the relevant considerations of the decisions, since the evidence of the opposition was not served on it.

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


title: Case C-286/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market — Coordination in the setting of quotation prices — Obligation to state reasons — Belated statement of reasons — Belated submission of evidence — Rights of defence — Principle of equality of arms — Principles governing the establishment of the facts — Distortion of the facts — Assessment of the evidence — Market structure — Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object — Burden of proof — Calculation of the fine — Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account — Sales of the same bananas counted twice)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG v European Commission
   (Case C-286/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market - Coordination in the setting of quotation prices - Obligation to state reasons - Belated statement of reasons - Belated submission of evidence - Rights of defence - Principle of equality of arms - Principles governing the establishment of the facts - Distortion of the facts - Assessment of the evidence - Market structure - Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object - Burden of proof - Calculation of the fine - Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account - Sales of the same bananas counted twice))
   (2015/C 155/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Dole Food Company, Inc., and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe, formerly Dole Germany OHG, to bear the costs jointly and severally.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-225/04: Action brought on 1 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/9

         Action brought on 1 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-225/04)
   (2004/C 190/15)
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxemburg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), or at least by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               2.

               Order Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired on 22 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 19 of 22.1.2002, p. 17.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 March 1997 in Case C-13/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht, Bonn): Ayse Süzen v. Zehnacker Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, Lefarth GmbH, party joined (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings)

text:
26 . 4 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 131 / 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  families moving within the Community, as amended and
                     of 27 February 1997                              updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83, must
                                                                      be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution
in Case C-59/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             of a Member State is not bound to grant supplementary
the Sozialgericht Nürnberg): Francisco Bastos Moriana                 family benefits to pensioners or orphans residing in
           and Others v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit H                   another Member State where the amount of the family
(Social security for migrant workers — Benefits for                   benefits paid by the Member State of residence is lower
     dependent children of pensioners and for orphans)                than that of the benefits provided for by the laws of the
                                                                      first Member State if entitlement to the pension, or to the
                         ( 97/C 131 /01 )                             orphan 's pension, has not been acquired solely by virtue
                                                                      of insurance periods completed in that State.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-59/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht
Nürnberg ( Social Court, Nuremberg) ( Germany), for a                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                      of 11 March 1997
court between Francisco Bastos Moriana,               Cristobal
Aguilera Reyes, Cristobal Gordo Valle, Fernando Romero                in Case C-13/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Ramos, Rosa Moscato and Ana Munoz Abato and                           the Arbeitsgericht, Bonn): Ayşe Süzen v. Zehnacker
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit — on the interpretation of                   Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, Lefarth
Articles 77 (2 ) ( b), 78 ( 2 ) ( b) and 79 ( 1 ) of Council                               GmbH, party joined H
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed                    (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
                                                                                of undertakings)
persons, to self employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and                                              ( 97/C 131/02 )
updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 (2 ) —
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L.                             (Language of the case: German)
Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,
G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                           published in the European Court Reports)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February
1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                      In Case C- 13/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht
Articles 77 (2) (b) (i) and 78 (2) (b) (i) of Council                 ( Labour Court), Bonn, for a preliminary ruling in the
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                    proceedings pending before that court between Ayşe Süzen
application of social security schemes to employed                    and Zehnacker Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhaus
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their             service, Lefarth GmbH, party joined — on the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 131 /2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 4 . 97
interpretation of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue — the Court,
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees '                 composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses              Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray
or parts of businesses ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.              ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                 D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
J. L. Murray and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ),                     ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                     Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Puissochet ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H.                       judgment on 11 March 1997, in which it:
Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; D.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 1997, in                      1 . Dismisses the appeal.
which it has ruled :
                                                                          2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Article 1 (1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                 C ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 , p . 10 .
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees '
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses
or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that
the Directive does not apply to a situation in which a
person who had entrusted the cleaning of his premises to a
first undertaking terminates his contract with the latter
and, for the performance of similar work, enters into a                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
new contract with a second undertaking, if there is no                                            of 11 March 1997
 concomitant transfer from one undertaking to the other of
significant tangible or intangible assets or taking over by               in Case C-357/95 P: Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA
 the new employer of a major part of the workforce, in                        (ENU ) v. Commission of the European Communities (')
 terms of their numbers and skills, assigned by his                        (Appeal — EAEC — Supply — Right of option and
predecessor to the performance of the contract.                            exclusive right of the Euratom Supply Agency to conclude
                                                                           contracts for the supply of ores, source materials and
 (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 12 .                                   special fissile materials — Infringement of the rules of the
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                 Treaty — Community preference — Principles of good
                                                                           faith and legitimate expectations — Non-contractual
                                                                                liability)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/04 )
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                             of 11 March 1997
 in Case C-264/95 P: Commission of the European                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 Communities v. Union Internationale des chemins de fer                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                   (UIC) n
  (Appeal — Competition — Transport by rail — Legal                        In Case C-357/95 P: Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA
    basis for a decision — Regulation No 1017/68 — Scope)                   (ENU), a company incorporated under Portuguese law,
                               ( 97/C 131 /03                              established at Urgeiriça, Nelas (Portugal ), represented by
                                                                           João Mota de Campos and João Luis dos Reis Mota de
                                                                            Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                   (Language of the case: French)                           Luxembourg at the office of Joaquim Calvo Basáran,
                                                                            34 boulevard Ernest Feltgen — appeal against the
                                                                            judgment of the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                            Extended Composition) of 15 September 1995 in Joined
             published in the European Court Reports)                       Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 ENU v. Commission [ 19951
                                                                            ECR 11-2459 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
  In Case C-264/95 P: Commission of the European                            other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
  Communities (Agent: Giuliano Marenco ) — appeal                           European Communities ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and
  against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third                Jürgen Grunwald ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
  Chamber, Extended Composition ) of 6 June 1995 in Case                    Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
  T- 14/93     Union internationale        des chemins    de  fer v.        and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris,
  Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-1503 , seeking to have that                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H.
  judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings                    Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; N.
  being: Union internationale des chemins de fer (UIC ), an                 Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
  association of railway companies, having its head office in               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
  Paris, represented by Chantal Momége, of the Paris Bar,                    11 March 1997, in which it:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 March 1997 in Case T-73/95: Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Social policy - European Social Fund - Assistance in the financing of vocational training measures - New decision following a judgment of the Court of Justice - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Prohibition of reformatio in pejus - Reasonable time)

text:
26 . 4 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 131 / 15
Dalheim ( Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented by                  of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address               Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter,              Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 1997, in
180 Route de Longwy, against Commission of the                        which it :
European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
Julian Currall and Alberto dal Ferro) — application, first,           1 . dismisses the application;
for annulment of the Commission's decision cancelling the
procedure under vacancy notice COM/116/94, and, in so
far as may be necessary, of its decision to reserve the post          2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs in their
forming the subject-matter of that vacancy notice for                       entirety.
nationals of new Member States and to publish notice of
open competition COM/A/929 ( Head of Unit V.F.3 ) and                 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
of its decision of 14 December 1995 rejecting the
applicant's complaint of 14 July 1995 , and, secondly, for
an order requiring the Commission to pay compensation
for the non-material harm suffered — the Court of First
Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-
Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it:                                                  ( First Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 March 1997
 1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it             in Case T-21/96 : Antonio Giannmi v. Commission of the
     seeks annulment of the decision of the Commission to                                 European Communities (')
     publish notice of open competition COM/A/929 (Head
     of Unit V.F.3);                                                   (Officials — Appointment — Vacancy Notice — Interests
                                                                                of the service)
2 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;                                            ( 97/C 131 /38 )
 3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                        (Language of the case: French)
 H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                       In Case T-21 /96 : Antonio Giannini, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo
                                                                       Locchi, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jeannot Biver,
                                                                       3 Rue de la Loge, against the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Julian Currall ) — application for, first, annulment of the
                       of 19 March 1997                                decisions appointing Mr X as head of the Unit
                                                                       'Negotiations and Management of Agreements on Textiles;
 in Case T-73/95 : Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira,               footwear; various' and rejecting the applicant's
     SA v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                candidature for that post, and, secondly, damages in
  (Social policy — European Social Fund — Assistance in                respect of the material and non-material loss which the
  the financing of vocational training measures — New                  applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those
 decision following a judgment of the Court of Justice —               decisions — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
 Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Prohibition               composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.
           of reformatio in pejus — Reasonable time)                   Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 1997, in
                           ( 97/C 131 /37)                             which it :
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      1 . annuls the Commission 's decisions appointing Mr X as
                                                                             head of the Unit 'Negotiations and Management of
  In Case T-73/95 : Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira,                    Agreements on Textiles; footwear; various ' following
  SA, established at Montijo, Portugal, represented by Dr                    the publication of Vacancy Notice COM/151 /94, and
 Joaquim Marques de Ascensão, of the Lisbon Bar, with an                     rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post;
  address for service at the office of Alberto de Sousa, União
  de Bancos Portugueses SA, 12 Rue de la Grève, against                 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ana
  Maria Alves Vieira and Günter Wilms ) — application for
  the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(94)1410/               3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
  9 of 12 July 1994, notified to the applicant on
  28 December 1994, concerning financial assistance from                (') OJ No C 133,4 . 5 . 1996 .
  the European Social Fund for vocational training measures
  — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed


title: Case T-193/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/32

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA)
   (Case T-193/14)
   2014/C 151/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cristiano di Thiene SpA (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: F. Fischetti and F. Celluprica, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nautica Apparel, Inc. (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2014 given in Case R 96/2013-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AERONAUTICA’ for goods in services in Classes 9, 18, 20, 25, 35, 42 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 7 508 237

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Several earlier Community and UK trade mark registrations of the word marks ‘NAUTICA’ and ‘NAUTICA BLUE’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 18, 20, 25, 27 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-239/15: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Cryo-Save v EUIPO — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Cryo-Save — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the mark — Burden of proof — Declaration of revocation)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Cryo-Save v EUIPO — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save)
   (Case T-239/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cryo-Save - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the mark - Burden of proof - Declaration of revocation))
   (2017/C 144/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and W. Schramek, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 2567/2013-4), concerning revocation proceedings between MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack and Cryo-Save.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cryo-Save AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-31/12: Order of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission (Action for annulment — Structural Funds — Measure not subject to review — Measure in part informative and in part preparatory — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/34

         Order of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission
   (Case T-31/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Structural Funds - Measure not subject to review - Measure in part informative and in part preparatory - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 366/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Région Poitou-Charentes (France) (represented by: J. Capiaux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 18 November 2011, mentioning as its subject: ‘Closure of the program “Atlantic Area” 2000-2006, Approval of the Final Report, CCI: 2001 RG 16 0PC 006’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Région Poitou-Charentes shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-277/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/58

         Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-277/05)
   (2005/C 217/117)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 791/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B623 555 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case C-670/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Vinifrance SA (Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Articles 4 and 5 — Administrative penalty — Administrative measure — Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 — Aid for the private storage of concentrated grape must — Community origin — Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 — Long-term storage contract — Article 2(2) — Article 17(1)(b) — Reduction of the amount of aid in relation to the seriousness of the breach committed)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Vinifrance SA
   (Case C-670/11) (1)

   (Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Articles 4 and 5 - Administrative penalty - Administrative measure - Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 - Aid for the private storage of concentrated grape must - Community origin - Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 - Long-term storage contract - Article 2(2) - Article 17(1)(b) - Reduction of the amount of aid in relation to the seriousness of the breach committed)
   2013/C 38/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Defendant: Société Vinifrance SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(2), and 17 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must (OJ 1983 L 116, p. 77), the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1) and the provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Community aid for the storage of concentrated grape must in return for the conclusion of a storage contract with the national intervention body — Acquisition by the producer of grape must from a fictitious or non-existent company — Concept of ‘owner’ within the meaning of the regulation — Regulation instituting a system of EU aid but without providing a scheme of measures and sanctions in the event of a failure to comply with its provisions — Determination of that scheme in the event of injury to the financial interests of the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the non-existence of the company alleged to have sold grape musts means that the Community origin of the grape musts cannot be established, the producer who has acquired those grape musts from that company cannot, on any view, benefit from a storage aid under Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2253/88 of 19 July 1988.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings:

                           —

                           Article 17(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2646/1999 of 15 December 1999, cannot constitute a legal basis for the purposes of punishing a breach by the producer of the obligation laid down by Regulation No 822/87, as amended by Regulation No 2253/88, according to which the grape musts which can confer an entitlement to storage aid must be of Community origin;

                           —

                           in the absence, both in sectoral rules and in national rules, of a provision providing for the application of a penalty, the irregularities at issue cannot be subject to a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, and

                           —

                           the national authorities are required to apply an administrative measure, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which requires repayment of all of the aid unduly paid, in so far as it is established, which is a matter for the national court to determine, that the two storage contracts at issue in the main proceedings each related, partially or totally, to the grape musts which cannot be regarded as being of Community origin and which were mixed, in the course of concentration and storage, with grape musts of Community origin.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.