title: Case C-316/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2016 — B v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 3 June 2016 — B v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-316/16)
   (2016/C 343/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: B

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it outright impossible for the imposition and subsequent implementation of a custodial penalty to have the result that the integrating links of a Union citizen who entered the host Member State at the age of three must be considered to be broken, with the consequence that there is no uninterrupted period of residence of 10 years for the purposes of Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38 (1) and therefore that there is no requirement to grant him protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38, if that Union citizen has, since entering the host Member State at the age of three, spent his entire life there and no longer has any ties to the Member State of his nationality, and the offence that resulted in imposition and implementation of a custodial sentence was committed only after he had been resident for 20 years?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: With regard to the question of whether implementation of a custodial penalty leads to the breaking of integration links, must the custodial penalty imposed in respect of the offence giving rise to the expulsion be disregarded?

               3.

               If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: What criteria are to be used to determine whether the Union citizen affected in such a case nevertheless benefits from protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38?

               4.

               If the answers to Question 1 and Question 2 are in the negative: Are there mandatory provisions of EU law for determining ‘the precise point in time at which the question of expulsion arises’ and the point in time at which an overall assessment must be made of the affected Union citizen’s situation in order to establish the extent to which the non-continuous nature of the period of residence in the ten years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned prevents him from enjoying enhanced protection against expulsion?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case T-302/13: Order of the General Court of 14 August 2013 — Nordex Holding v OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna)

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/11

         Order of the General Court of 14 August 2013 — Nordex Holding v OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna)
   (Case T-302/13) (1)

   2013/C 298/21
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case T-384/09: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Rights of the defence — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state reasons — Fines — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/14

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie v Commission
      (Case T-384/09) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Fines - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)
      (2014/C 71/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG (Unterneukirchen, Germany); and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH (Unterneukirchen) (represented by: initially, A. Birnstiel, S. Janka and S. Dierckens, lawyers and, subsequently, A. Birnstiel and S. Janka)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. von Lingen and A. Antoniadis, Agents, and by A. Böhlka, lawyer)

         Intervener in support of the applicants: Gigaset AG (formerly Arques Industries AG) (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, A. Scheidtmann and B. Meyring, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it applies to the applicants, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders Gigaset AG to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-231/02: Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli and the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.9.2002
Action brought on 31 July 2002 by Osman Ocalan on                              considered under the Regulation must be presently
behalf of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly                        engaged in terrorism. In fact, since July 1999, the PKK
on behalf of Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) against                         has dropped its demand for Kurdish independence and
               the Council of the European Union                               has merely sought the recognition, through peaceful and
                                                                               political means,
                         (Case T-229/02)
                                                                          —    Breach of internationally recognised right of self-determi-
                                                                               nation, of cultural, civil and political rights.
                         (2002/C 233/56)
                                                                          —    Breach of fundamental rights of expression and associ-
                   (Language of the case: English)                             ation.
                                                                          —    Breach of other principles of Community Law such as
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        proportionality, certainty, equality and right to a fair
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     hearing.
Communities on 31 July 2002 by Osman Ocalan on behalf of
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly on behalf of                —    Misuse of power, in that the Council’s inclusion of the
Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), represented by Mark                         PKK in the list in question should be as a result of
Muller, barrister, Edward Grieves, barrister, instructed by                    political pressure from Turkey and not as a result of any
Gareth Pierce, partner at Birnberg, Peirce and partners, 14                    meaningful application of the aforesaid criteria to the
Inverness Street, London NW1 7HJ, UK.                                          facts.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     declare void the Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May
      2002 and the attendant decision dated 17 June 2002 in
      respect of its proscription of the PKK,
—     alternatively declare Regulation 2508/2001 illegal in
      respect of its application to the applicants,
                                                                          Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli and
                                                                          the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) against
—     order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
      applicants in the present proceedings,
—     order the Council to pay damages.                                                            (Case T-231/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/57)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The present Application is brought for partial annulement of
decisions 2002/334/EC and its successor 2002/460/EC, which
places PKK upon the EU terrorist list. These decisions were
made pursuant to the challenged Regulation no 2580/2001.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
On support of its conclusions, the Applicants submit the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
following grounds:                                                        European Communities on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli
                                                                          and the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO), rep-
                                                                          resented by Ugo Scuro, lawyer.
—     Failure to apply the criteria to the correct facts and/or
      have regard to the law of armed conflict where relevant.
      It is stated on this topic that the Council has imposed a
      ban upon a non-existent (recently disolved), organisation,          The applicants claim that the Court should:
      which, by definition, was incapable of being presently or
      in the future engaged in terrorism. Alternatively, if which
      is denied, the PKK is held to continue to exist as an               —    annul in its entirety Commission Regulation (EC)
      organisation, the Council wholly failed to adhere to the                 No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards
      requirement that any putative organisation required to be                for olive oil, alternatively Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 thereof.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Communities on 2 August 2002 by Kharis Alexandratos
                                                                          and Maria Panagiotou, resident in Brussels, represented by
                                                                          K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicants, being the President of AIFO (Associazione
Italiana Frantoiani Oleari) and that association itself, seek
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil ( 1).
                                                                          —     allow the application;
In support of their claims, they plead infringement of
Article 33, the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) and                  —     annul the contested measures so that the defendant is
Articles 153, 157 and 253 of the EC Treaty. They maintain                       obliged to allow the applicants to sit the oral tests;
in that regard that the contested regulation favours the
maintenance of the dominant positions occupied by large                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
undertakings in the sector concerned, thereby impeding the
development of small and medium-sized undertakings, and
that it does not provide consumers with guarantees as to the
provenance and authenticity of the product. In particular, the            Pleas in law and main arguments
regulation provides that the labelling is to bear information on
the category of olive oil concerned, but that information is
inadequate to guarantee the intrinsic quality of the product.             This is an action challenging the decision of the selection
More specifically, it provides that the designation of origin of          board for Council Open Competition A/393 to award the
virgin and extra virgin olive oils is to be purely optional,              applicants a fail mark in one of the written tests and not to
whereas, for consumers, the geographical origin of the raw                allow them to sit the oral tests.
materials is invariably a point of major importance. The
regulation requires the product to be presented to the final
consumer in packaging of a maximum capacity of five litres,               The applicants plead infringement of the first paragraph of
to the prejudice of small operators such as pressers, who                 Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal
generally sell the product in bulk on the spot.                           treatment. They contend that the infringement is aggravated
                                                                          by the defendant’s refusal to grant requests made by them
                                                                          seeking information concerning the guidelines and criteria for
Moreover, the contested regulation does not provide adequate
                                                                          marking their papers and comparing them with those of the
guarantees as to the provenance and authenticity of the
product, thus impeding the marketing of types of oil which                successful candidates.
are of higher quality and are more susceptible to direct control
by the consumer, such as that sold directly by the presser.               Furthermore, in the applicants’ submission that refusal renders
                                                                          the contested measures liable to annulment also by reason of
From another standpoint, and contrary to the objective of                 breach of the duty to state reasons for measures adversely
the common agricultural policy, the contested regulation                  affecting them and of the principle of transparency in conjunc-
discourages the distribution of high-quality olive oil such as            tion with Article 255 EC concerning access to documents.
that marketed directly by pressers, and acts as a disincentive
to productivity, technical progress and rational agricultural
development.
( 1) OJ L 155 of 14.6.2002, p. 27.
                                                                          Action brought on 5 August 2002 by Strongline A/S
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Kharis Alexandratos                                            (Case T-235/02)
and Maria Panagiotou against the Council of the European
                               Union
                                                                                (2002/C 233/59)
                         (Case T-233/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                         (2002/C 233/58)
                    (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 5 August 2002 by Strongline A/S,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   represented by Mr Jacob S. Ørndrup at Gorrissen, Federspiel,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                Kierkegaard in Copenhagen, Denmark.


title: Case C-98/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Wim JJ Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Wim JJ Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH
   (Case C-98/12) (1)

   2013/C 38/27
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case F-22/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2006 — Vienne and Others v Parliament (Refusal of assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2006 — Vienne and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-22/06) (1)

   (Refusal of assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 261/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. De Wachter, M. Mustapha-Pacha and K. Zejdova, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the European Parliament's decision rejecting the requests for assistance brought by the applicants in connection with the transfer of their pension rights acquired in Belgium and, secondly, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case T-51/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission (Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Sugar originating from Croatia — Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Notice to importers published in the Official Journal — Good faith)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission
   (Case T-51/07) (1)

   (Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Sugar originating from Croatia - Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Notice to importers published in the Official Journal - Good faith)
   (2008/C 301/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH (St. Andrä im Lavanttal, Austria) (represented by: U. Schrömbges and O. Wenzlaff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and S. Schønberg, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 5789 final of 4 December 2006.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Appointment — Discretion of the appointing authority — Interests of the service)

text:
C 289/22                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      29.11.2003
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4.    Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half of                              of 17 September 2003
      the costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                            in Case T-233/02: Charis Alexandratos and Maria Pana-
5.    Orders the applicant to bear one half of her own costs.                        giotou v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Action for annulment — Open competition —
(1) OJ 2002 C 219 of 14.09.02.                                              Decision of the selection board refusing admission to the
                                                                            oral tests — Scope of the obligation to state reasons —
                                                                            Scope of judicial review — Compliance with the rules
                                                                                governing the deliberations of the selection board)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-233/02, Charis Alexandratos and Maria Panagiotou,
                      of 18 September 2003                                  residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by C. Tagaras,
                                                                            lawyer, v Council of the European Union, (Agents: F. Anton
                                                                            and D. Zahariou) — application for annulment of the decision
In Case T-221/02 Giorgio Lebedef and Others against the                     of the selection board in the Council’s open competition A/
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                           393 (2000/C98 A/02) refusing to admit the applicants to the
                                                                            oral tests for that competition, — the Court of First Instance
                                                                            (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President of the
(Officials — Pay — Travelling expenses — Method of                          Chamber, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:
                             calculation)                                   I. Natsinas, Administrator, delivered a judgment on 17 Septem-
                                                                            ber 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (2003/C 289/46)
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: French)                          2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 C 233 of 28.9.02.
In Case T-221/02: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, resident in Senningen-
berg (Luxembourg), and 63 other officials, represented by
G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for annulment of the Commission’s decision changing, with
effect from 1996 or 1997, the procedure for calculating the                                       of 30 September 2003
annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the journey
via Brindisi and annulment of the applicants’ reimbursement
statements implementing that decision — the Court of First                  in Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny v Court of Justice of the
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,                                  European Communities (1)
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, has
given a judgment on 18 September 2003 in which it:                          (Officials — Appointment — Discretion of the appointing
                                                                                authority — Interests of the service)
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2003/C 289/48)
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 247 of 12 October 2002.
                                                                            In Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny, an official of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities, residing at Roodt-sur-
                                                                            Syre (Luxembourg), represented by G. Vandersanden and
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 289/23
L. Levi, avocats, against the Court of Justice of the European              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application for annul-                                                 INSTANCE
ment of the decision of the appointing authority of 11 March
2002 rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the adminis-
trator’s post referred to in notice of vacancy CJ 62/01 — the                                         of 1 August 2003
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 Septem-                in Case T-198/01 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
ber 2003 in which it:                                                               v Commission of the European Communities
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                            (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                           to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing
                                                                            up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional
                                                                                suspension)
(1) OJ C 305 of 7 December 2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 289/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 3 July 2003
                                                                            In Case T-198/01 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
in Case T-10/01: Lichtwer Pharma AG v Office for                            established at Ilmenau, (Germany), represented by G. Schohe
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       and C. Arhold, lawyers, with an address for service in
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                  Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties (Agents: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz), supported by
                                                                            Schott Glas, established at Mainz (Germany), represented by
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition
                                                                            U. Soltész, lawyer — application for extension of the suspen-
              withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                            sion of the operation, ordered in this case by order of the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2002, of
                          (2003/C 289/49)                                   Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June
                                                                            2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische
                   (Language of the case: German)                           Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (OJ 2000 L 62, p. 30) — the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
                                                                            1 August 2003 in which he:
In Case T-10/01, Lichtwer Pharma AG, established in Berlin,
represented by H.P. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein,                   1.    Suspends the operation until 17 February 2004 of Article 2 of
lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                        Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Walbroeck and                        State aid C 44/2001 implemented by Germany for Technische
G. Schneider), Biofarma, formerly Orsem SARL, established in                      Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by V. Gil Vega and
A. Ruiz López, lawyers: Appeal against the decision of the
Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                   2.    Makes that suspension subject to the following conditions: first,
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 November                       that the four conditions laid down in the second point of the
2000 (Case R 586/1999-2) relating to opposition proceedings                       operative part of the order made today in Case T-378/02 R
between Lichtwer Pharma AG and Biofarma, the Court of First                       should be satisfied by the applicant, especially as regards the
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,                             dates fixed therein; second, that the applicant should before
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                31 December 2003 at the latest repay to the Bundesanstalt für
has made an order on 3 July 2003, the operative part of which                     Vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben an additional sum of
is as follows:                                                                    EUR 256 000 and that it should lodge at the Registry of the
                                                                                Court of First Instance and at the Commission, within one week
1.    There is no need to adjudicate.                                             of making that payment, and by 7 January 2004 at the latest,
                                                                                written proof of that payment; third, that it should lodge at the
2.    The applicant and the intervener must be ordered to bear their              Registry of the Court of First Instance and at the Commission,
      own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the defendant.                   by 6 February 2004 at the latest, a detailed report drawn up
                                                                                by an accountant on its financial situation at 31 December
                                                                                2003 and, in particular, the additional sum which it would be
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                         able to pay by 30 June 2004 at the latest, if judgment in the
                                                                                case in the main proceedings should not have been given by
                                                                                that lastmentioned date.


title: Case C-494/06 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2006 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2006 in Case T-304/04 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, Wam SpA

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/13

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2006 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2006 in Case T-304/04 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, Wam SpA
   (Case C-494/06 P)
   (2007/C 20/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, Wam SpA
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 6 September 2006 in Joined Cases T-304/04 and T-316/04 Italian Republic and Wam SpA v Commission of the European Communities and, in so doing,

               —

               give a final ruling on the dispute and dismiss the action as unfounded;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new ruling;

               —

               order the Italian Republic and Wam SpA to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission puts forward a single ground of appeal. In finding that the contested decision failed to give adequate reasons to enable the effect of the aid on trade and competition to be identified, the Court of First Instance has infringed Article 87(1) EC, read in conjunction with Article 253 EC, and has stated contradictory grounds for the judgment.


title: Case T-54/12: Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark SPORT — Earlier national and international word marks K2 SPORTS — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
   (Case T-54/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark SPORT - Earlier national and international word marks K2 SPORTS - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 79/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: K2 Sports Europe GmbH (Penzberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and I. Harrington, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Karhu Sport Iberica, SL (Córdoba, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2011 (Case R 986/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between K2 Sports Europe GmbH and Karhu Sport Iberica, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders K2 Sports Europe GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-53/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-53/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/51)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Action brought on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-4/95)

text:
No C 119/12         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13 . 5 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . order the defendants to pay the costs of the
                     of 23 February 1 995                                proceedings.
     in Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v.
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                          ( 95/C 119/29 )                            Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG, established
in Bremen ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Jürgen Rabe,
Rechtsanwalt of Hamburg and of the Brussels Bar, with an             Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk            Konrad against the Council of the European Union and the
& Prum, 13B Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                            Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: B. Smulders and J.                                            (Casé T-9/95 )
Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of Commission                                    ( 95/C 119/31 )
Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg
via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale                          (Language of the case: German)
of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH
to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court of First Instance               An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët,                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
R. García-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung,             Communities on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
Registrar, made an order on 23 February 1995, the                    Konrad, Löllbach (Federal Republic of Germany),
operative part of which is as follows:                               represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case        Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
      T-490/93, Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v. Commission               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
      of the European Communities, in order to enable the            Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
      Court of Justice to rule on the applications for
     annulment;                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 , the costs are reserved.                                          1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
                                                                         SLOM III compensation for the period from 1 July 1984
(M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                          to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 83 670,155 ,
(2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7. 1993 , p. 43 .                                together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                                                                     2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
Action brought on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler                    Commission and also stay the proceedings.
against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          (Case T-4/95 )
                          ( 95/C 119/30 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                     Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler,                  Action brought on 15 February 1995 by the International
Orsfeld ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                     Express Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the
Matthias H. François, Rechtsanwalt, of François, Neuhaus                     Commission of the European Communities
& Kollegen, Bitburg, with an address for service in                                        (Case T-28/95 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Annick Wurth, 100                                             ( 95/C 119/32 )
Boulevard de la Pétrusse .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         (Language of the case: English)
 1 . grant the applicant compensation for the period during          An action against the Commission of the European
      which she was required not to market produce;                  Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-369/08: Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-369/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/70

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 in Case C-447/02 P: KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Colour per se — Orange colour)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 21 October 2004
   in Case C-447/02 P: KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Colour per se - Orange colour)
   (2004/C 300/31)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-447/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 11 December 2002 by KWS Saat AG, established in Einbeck (Germany) (represented by C. Rohnke), the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders KWS Saat AG to pay the costs.

      (1)   OJ C 55 du 8.3.2003.


title: Case T-333/14: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Helbrecht v EUIPO — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Cancellation of the earlier figurative mark serving as a basis for the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/29

         Order of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Helbrecht v EUIPO — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)
   (Case T-333/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Cancellation of the earlier figurative mark serving as a basis for the contested decision - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 121/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Helbrecht (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Lenci Calzature SpA (Turchetto-Montecarlo, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2014 (Case R 830/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Lenci Calzature and Mr Helbrecht.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Lenci Calzature SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Andreas Helbrecht. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


20.9.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 226/15
According to the ORNIS committee set up by Article 16 of the                  Removal from the register of Case C-131/02 (1)
directive, ‘small numbers’ should mean an [additional] number
of less than 1 % of the annual mortality (average), determined                                 (2003/C 226/28)
on the basis of an expert opinion, for those species whose
hunting is prohibited, and a number corresponding to a level            By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of about 1 % for those species whose hunting is permitted, in           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
such a way, however, that compliance with Article 9 of the              register of Case C-131/02: Commission of the European
directive depends in any case on compliance with the other              Communities v Republic of Austria.
points of the article. The spring hunting permitted by Finland
has exceeded by several times the number calculated on the
basis of the committee's recommendation.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103,
    p. 1.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/29)
Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of                    By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/02: Commission of the European
                         (Case C-345/03)                                Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                         (2003/C 226/27)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    Removal from the register of Case C-407/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/30)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 25 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
1.   declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 register of Case C-407/02: Commission of the European
     Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            Communities v Hellenic Republic.
     of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehi-
     cles or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
     obligations under that directive;
2.   order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-10/03 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/31)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
21 April 2002.                                                          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-10/03: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Republic of Finland.
(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Case C-28/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by NV Ter Lembeek International against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 23 November 2006 in Case T-217/02 NV Ter Lembeek International v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/16

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by NV Ter Lembeek International against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 23 November 2006 in Case T-217/02 NV Ter Lembeek International v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-28/07 P)
   (2007/C 82/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: NV Ter Lembeek International (represented by: J.-P. Vande Maele, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded and set aside the judgment in Case T-217/02 to the extent to which that judgment rejected the first part of the first plea in law;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The sole plea in law is to the effect that the Court of First Instance acted contrary to Article 87(1) EC in ruling in the judgment under appeal, on the basis of a misconstruction of the law, that there was favourable treatment of the appellant within the terms of Article 87(1) EC.

               2.

               The sole plea consists of two parts:

                           —

                           Primarily: the judgment under appeal breaches Article 87(1) EC in holding that that there was favourable treatment of the appellant within the terms of Article 87(1) EC on the basis of a merely formalistic examination of Article 87(1) EC, rather than an economic appraisal.

                           —

                           In the alternative: the judgment under appeal breaches Article 87(1) EC in holding that that there was no overvaluation of the shares in issue and that the absence of overvaluation constituted favourable treatment within the terms of Article 87(1) EC.


title: Joined Cases T-219/09 and T-326/09: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Albertini and Others and Donnelly v European Parliament (Actions for annulment — Additional pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional pension scheme — Measure of general scope — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/22

         Order of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Albertini and Others and Donnelly v European Parliament
   (Joined Cases T-219/09 and T-326/09) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Additional pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the additional pension scheme - Measure of general scope - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 55/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Gabriele Albertini (Milan, Italy) and the 62 other Members or former Members of the European Parliament whose names appear in the annex to the order (Case T-219/09); and Brendan Donnelly (London, United Kingdom) (Case T-326/09) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and G. Corstens, and subsequently by N. Lorenz, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and G. Corstens, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament of 9 March and 1 April 2009 amending the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme for Members of the European Parliament in Annex VIII to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-219/09 and T-326/09 are joined for the purposes of the order.

               2.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               Mr Gabrielle Albertini, the 62 other applicants listed in the annex and Mr Brendan Donnelly shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-92/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris (Gala Schnitzer)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/21

         Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris (Gala Schnitzer)
   (Case T-92/14)
   2014/C 151/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elaris SNC (Angers, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 003/2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community plant variety right: The applicant

      Community plant variety right concerned: Gala Schnitzer — Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 18759

      Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Upheld the Community plant variety right

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Found the appeal well founded and annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 61 (1) (b), 55 (4), 59 (3) and 62 of the Council Regulation No. 2100/94.


title: Case C-386/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the The Commissione Tributaria Provinciale (Regional Tax Court) Milan, Italy lodged on 18 September 2006 — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1 (Local Tax Office) Milan

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the The Commissione Tributaria Provinciale (Regional Tax Court) Milan, Italy lodged on 18 September 2006 — Bakemark Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Milano 1 (Local Tax Office) Milan
   (Case C-386/06)
   (2006/C 294/45)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   The Commissione Tributaria Provinciale (Regional Tax Court), Milan
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bakemark Italia Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio (Local Tax Office) Milan
   Question referred
   Is Article 19(a)(1)(c), (d) and (e) of DPR No 633/72 incompatible with Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive No 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977? (1)

      (1)  OJ L145, p. 1


title: Case T-398/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 July 2011 by Yvette Barthel and Others against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 May 2011 in Case F-59/10 Barthel and Others v Court of Justice

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/10

         Appeal brought on 25 July 2011 by Yvette Barthel and Others against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 May 2011 in Case F-59/10 Barthel and Others v Court of Justice

   (Case T-398/11 P)
   2011/C 290/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Yvette Barthel (Arlon, Belgium), Marianne Reiffers (Olm, Luxembourg) and Lieven Massez (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellants

               —

               Annulment of the order of 10 May 2011 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-59/10 Barthel and Others v Court of Justice dismissing the appellants’ action as inadmissible;

               —

               A declaration that the action is admissible;

               —

               Referral of the case back to the CST for judgment on the merits in accordance with law;

               —

               Reservation of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal:

               1.

               The first ground of appeal alleges breach of the obligation to state the reasons for its order, on the ground that in dismissing the appellants’ action as inadmissible the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 296 TFEU and the first sentence of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as Article 7(1) of Annex 1 thereto, by not examining all the breaches of law alleged before it and by not enabling the appellants to ascertain its grounds for rejecting their pleas in law alleging that it was unlawful to interpret Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union by contrary inference from Article 91 thereof and relying on the right of officials to submit to the appointing authority of their instituton a complaint against any act adversely affecting them within, under the second indent of Article 90(2), a period of three months starting on the date of notification of the decision to the person concerned. By failing to refute all the pleas in law and arguments deployed by the appellants in their action for annulment, the Civil Service Tribunal thereby infringed its obligation to state the reasons for its order.

               2.

               The second ground of appeal alleges error of law, on the ground that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the decision of 29 October 2009 rejecting the appellants’ request constituted a decision purely confirmatory of a failure to reply which was deemed to be an implied decision rejecting the request, although the lateness of the express decision was explained by the wait for an internal opinion sought from one of the Court of Justice’s services to enable it to examine whether the appellants fulfilled the conditions for entitlement to the allowance for shiftwork under Article 56a of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union.


title: Case F-110/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 December 2014  — Migliore v Commission (Promotion — Certification procedure — 2013 procedure — Exclusion of the applicant from the definitive list of officials authorised to follow the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 2 December 2014 — Migliore v Commission
   (Case F-110/13) (1)

   ((Promotion - Certification procedure - 2013 procedure - Exclusion of the applicant from the definitive list of officials authorised to follow the training programme - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations))
   (2015/C 026/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nunzio Migliore (Sterrebeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Blot, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision excluding the applicant from the list of candidates authorised to participate in the ‘certification’ training programme in 2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Migliore is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, p. 41.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-481/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Georg Heininger and Helga Heininger v Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Right of cancellation — Agreement to grant credit secured by charge on immovable property)

text:
C 44/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ                  for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
1993 L 30, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    court between Georg Heininger and Helga Heininger and
Iglesias, President, N. Colneric (President of Chambers), C. Gul-            Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG on the interpretation
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), L. Sevón,                  of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                  protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,                   from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31), and Council
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a                   Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approxi-
judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:                         mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                             of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987
1.    Where a national measure generally prohibiting exports of              L 42, p. 48) as amended by Council Directive 90/88/EEC of
      waste for disposal is justified by the principles of proximity,        22 February 1990 (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14), the Court (Sixth
      priority for recovery and self-sufficiency, in accordance with         Chamber), composed of F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
      Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of            C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and
      1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments            J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
      of waste within, into and out of the European Community, it is         Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given
      not necessary for that national measure to be subject to a further     a judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
      and separate review of its compatibility with Articles 34 and 36
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29 EC and             1.    Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
      30 EC).                                                                      protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
                                                                                from business premises is to be interpreted as applying to a
2.    Article 4(3) of Regulation No 259/93 does not authorise a
                                                                                secured-credit agreement such as that in point in the main
      Member State which has adopted legislation introducing an
                                                                                proceedings, with the result that the right of cancellation
      obligation to offer waste for disposal to an approved body to
                                                                                provided for in Article 5 of that directive is available to a
      provide that, where the waste is not allocated to a treatment
                                                                                consumer who has entered into a contract of that type in one of
      centre for which that body is responsible, its shipment to
                                                                                the cases specified in Article 1.
      treatment installations in other Member States is authorised
      only on condition that the intended disposal satisfy the               2.    Directive 85/577 precludes the national legislature from
      requirements of the environmental protection legislation of that             imposing a time-limit of one year from the conclusion of the
      Member State.                                                                contract within which the right of cancellation provided for in
3.    Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 259/93 preclude a Member                    Article 5 of that directive may be exercised, where the consumer
      State from applying to shipments between Member States of                    has not received the information specified in Article 4.
      waste for disposal, before the implementation of the notification
      procedure laid down in the regulation, its own procedure in            (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
      relation to the offer and allocation of the waste.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             of 13 December 2001
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                   in Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                       of 13 December 2001
in Case C-481/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Refusal
from the Bundesgerichtshof): Georg Heininger and Helga                                    to end the ban on British beef and veal)
   Heininger v Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/04)
(Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Right of
cancellation — Agreement to grant credit secured by charge                                        (Language of the case: French)
                      on immovable property)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2002/C 44/03)                                                       in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-1/00: Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Agents: D. Booss and G. Berscheid), supported by United
                                                                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agent:
                                                                             J.E. Collins, assisted by D. Anderson QC and M. Hoskins) v
In Case C-481/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                   French Republic (Agents: initially K. Rispal-Bellanger and
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Republic of Germany)                    J.-F. Dobelle, subsequently R. Loosli-Surrans and J.-F. Dobelle,


title: Case F-121/12: Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/36

         Action brought on 17 October 2012 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-121/12)
   2012/C 379/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annul the decision of Europol not to renew the applicant’s contract for an unlimited duration and order Europol to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration to which the applicant would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and any other compensation actually received by her since 15 April 2012.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the defendant on 20 December 2011 by which it informed the applicant that her fixed-term contract expiring on 14 April 2012 would not be renewed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the difference between (i) the remuneration to which she would have been entitled had she remained in her post at Europol and (ii) the amount of remuneration, fees, unemployment benefits and any other compensation actually received by her since 15 April 2012 by way of replacement for the remuneration she was receiving as a temporary agent;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-193/14 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/17

         Appeal brought on 15 April 2014 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-193/14 P)
   2014/C 212/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, B. O'Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, European Commission, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl//Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos, SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, Vallourec Tubes France, formerly V & M France, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, voestalpine Tubulars GmbH, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2014 in Case C-528/09 ‘Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union’;

               —

               reject the first limb of the third plea in law put forward by the applicants at first instance as unfounded in law;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration for the remaining pleas in law at first instance to the extent that the facts have not been established by the General Court;

               —

               order Hubei to pay the Council’s costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               first, the General Court infringed Article 3(5) of the basic A-D Regulation (1) and distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it, insofar as it made a selective and incomplete appraisal of the factors required by law to determine that the Union industry was in a vulnerable situation at the end of the IP;

               —

               second, the General Court misinterpreted and then misapplied Article 3(7) of the basic A-D Regulation in relation to the foreseen collapse in demand;

               —

               third, the General Court misinterpreted Article 3(9) of the basic A-D Regulation as to the threat of injury’s analysis;

               —

               fourth, the General Court exceeded its jurisdiction, insofar as it substituted its own assessment of the economic factors under consideration to that of the Union institutions.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, p. 1; replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ L 343, p. 51


title: Case T-414/17: Action brought on 3 July 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/53

         Action brought on 3 July 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
   (Case T-414/17)
   (2017/C 277/76)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Einheitlicher Abwicklungsausschuss (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05)’), and in any event to the extent that that decision concerns the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of incomplete notification of the decision

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the decision


title: Case C-465/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC — Right of establishment — Recognition of professional qualifications — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-465/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Right of establishment - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 205/18
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou and H. Støvbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), which repeals Directive 89/49/EEC (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-326/17: Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Air Canada v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/55

         Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Air Canada v Commission
   (Case T-326/17)
   (2017/C 239/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Air Canada (Saint-Laurent, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: T. Soames, G. Bakker and I.-Z. Prodromou-Stamoudi, lawyers, and J. Joshua, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (AT.39258 — Airfreight), in whole or in part as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul or in the alternative reduce substantially the amount of the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of the rights of defence, breach of the right to be heard and breach of essential procedural requirement.
               According to the applicant, the European Commission failed to give notice in the statement of objections of the theory of its entire case as expressed for the first time in the contested decision, thus preventing the applicant from defending itself against the charges, these being sufficient grounds for the annulment of the contested decision in its entirety.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the rights of defence, a failure to state reasons and a breach of essential procedural requirement.
               According to the applicant, the European Commission violated the applicant’s rights of defence by failing to (i) provide any or any adequate reasoning to support the finding of a single and continuous infringement on all routes; (ii) define the nature and scope of the alleged infringement(s) with the particularity required by law; (iii) correct the inherent contradiction between a single and continuous infringement and four separate infringements that led to the annulment of Commission Decision C (2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010, these being sufficient grounds for the annulment of the Decision in its entirety.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a manifest error of law relating to the non-ability of non-EU/EEA carriers to operate on intra-European routes.
               The applicant puts forward that the European Commission (i) wrongly found in Articles 1(1) and 1(4) of the contested decision that the applicant had participated in an infringement or infringements on routes within the EEA and between airports within the EU and airports in Switzerland on which it had no legal ability to provide airfreight services; (ii) overlooked or misunderstood the international and EU legal regimes governing aviation traffic rights; (iii) wrongly applied the relevant case law in finding that there were no ‘insurmountable barriers’ to the applicant offering services on intra-European routes and thus wrongly identifying the applicant as a potential competitor on those routes. According to the applicant, each and all comprise manifest errors of assessment and manifest errors of law, and individually or collectively provide sufficient grounds for the annulment in its entirety of the contested decision in its entirety, or, in the alternative of Articles 1(1) and 1(4) of that decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law and fact in relation to jurisdiction.
               The applicant puts forward that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and fact relating to (i) the wrongful reliance on entirely lawful acts on third country routes to prove or constitute an infringement on intra-European routes which infringement is impossible of commission (grounds for annulment of the contested decision in its entirety); (ii) wrongful assertion of jurisdiction over supposed collusion on ‘inbound’ traffic on third country routes (ground for annulment of the contested decision in its entirety or in the alternative of Articles 1(2) and 1(3)).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the evidence relied on against the applicant.
               According to the applicant, the European Commission: (i) failed properly to apply the law relating to single and continuous infringement as regards evidence; (ii) failed to establish a reliable evidential basis and to prove the facts against the applicant to the requisite legal standard; and (iii) wrongly refused to accept the applicant’s withdrawal of its misconceived leniency application and failed to consider the effect of that withdrawal on the evidence relied on against the applicant, these being sufficient grounds for the annulment of the contested decision in its entirety.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, in accordance with the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Pleas in Law, the applicant requests the Court to cancel the fine imposed by Article 3 or in the alternative substantially reduce the fine pursuant to its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU, Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003 and established case law.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile di Bologna, Sezione Lavoro, by order of that court of 16 April 1997 in the case of Barbara Bellone against Yokohama SpA (Case C-215/97)

text:
No C 228/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         26 . 7. 97
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       1 . Is Article 13 ( A) ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive (') to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that two natural persons ( i.e.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          individuals) who carry on business in common as
                                                                             partners        cannot         claim     exemption        under
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                   subparagraph ( b ) in the circumstances summarized in
a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,               the schedule to these questions and on the assumptions
upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under                       that :
Article 395 and Annex XXXVI of the Act concerning the
conditions of accession of the Portuguese Republic to the                    ( i ) the business consists of medical care and closely
                                                                                related activities:
European Communities, Directive 75/440/EEC is
applicable in Portugal as from 1 January 1989; the period                           and
for the entry into force of the necessary provisions of
domestic law thus expired on that date . Despite the                         ( ii ) they are 'duly recognized' and their activities are
prescribed periods having expired, the Portuguese                                   of a similar nature to those provided by ' hospitals'
Republic has nevertheless failed to adopt a systematic plan                         and/or     'centres     for   medical  treatment        or
of action including a timetable for the improvement of                              diagnosis '?
surface water, especially that falling within category A3 .
(') OJ No L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 26 .
                                                                             In particular, are            the  partners  excluded      from
                                                                             exemption because :
                                                                             ( a ) they do not constitute a ' body' governed by public
                                                                                law;
                                                                              ( b ) their activities are not undertaken under social
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                          conditions comparable to those applicable to
di Bologna, Sezione Lavoro, by order of that court of                               bodies governed by public law ?
16 April 1997 in the case of Barbara Bellone against
                          Yokohama SpA
                                                                        2 . Is Article 13 (A) ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive to be
                         ( Case C-215 /97 )
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that two natural persons
                            ( 97/C 228/20 )                                   ( i.e. individuals ) who carry on business in common
                                                                              as partners cannot claim exemption under
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        subparagraph (g) in the circumstances summarized in
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di                      the schedule to these questions and on the assumption
Bologna, Sezione Lavoro ( District Civil Court of Bologna,                    that the services they supply are 'closely linked to
Employment Division ) of 16 April 1997, received at the                       welfare and social security work, including those
 Court Registry on 9 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                   supplied by old people's homes'?
the case of Barbara Bellone v. Yokohame SpA on the
following question:                                                     (') Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
Is Directive 86/653/EEC (') compatible with Articles 2 and                  uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977 , p. 1 ).
 9 of Italian Law No 204 of 3 May 1985 , which make the
 validity of agency contracts conditional upon commercial
 agents being entered in the appropriate register ?
 (') OJ No L 382 , 31 . 12 . 198 , p . 17 .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 9 June 1997 by the Council of the
                                                                        European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                         16 April 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities in Case T-80/96
                                                                         between Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus and Council
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
 Tribunal, Belfast, by direction of that court of 4 June                                         of the European Union
 1997, in the case of Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg                                              ( Case C-218/97 P )
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                                                 ( 97/C 228/22 )
                          ( Case C-216/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/21 )
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 April
                                                                         1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  of the European Communities in Case T-80/96 between
 European Communities by direction of the VAT and                        Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus and Council of the
 Duties Tribunal, Belfast, of 4 June 1997, which was                     European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
 received at the Court Registry on 9 June 1997, for a                    of the European Communities on 9 June 1997 by the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Jennifer Gregg and                    Council of the European Union, represented by Amadeu
 Mervyn Gregg against the Commissioners of Customs and                   Lopes Sabino, Diego Canga Fano and Therese Blanchet, of
 Excise , on the following questions :                                   its Legal Servie, with an address for service in


title: Case C-126/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon (Second Chamber), France, by judgment of that court of 13 March 2001 in the case of Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie v GEMO SA

text:
C 134/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                     Removal from the register of Case C-103/99 (1)
istrative d’Appel de Lyon (Second Chamber), France, by
judgment of that court of 13 March 2001 in the case of
Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v                                   (2001/C 134/22)
                           GEMO SA
                                                                     By order of 7 November 2000 the President of the Court of
                        (Case C-126/01)                              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-103/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 134/19)                               ruling from Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): P. Moskof
                                                                     AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Lyon (Administrative Court of Appeal,             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Lyons) (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de l’Économie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie v GEMO SA on the following
question:
‘Does the charge on meat purchases provided for under
Article 302 bis ZD of the Code Général des Impôts form part
of an arrangement which may be regarded as aid within the
meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957                        Removal from the register of Case C-84/99 (1)
establishing the European Community (now, after amendment,
Article 87 EC)?’                                                                            (2001/C 134/23)
                                                                     By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-84/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Amsterdamsche
                                                                     Football Club ‘AJAX’ and Langenberg Participaties BV, also
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/00 (1)                 trading under the name ‘Fan Promotions’ v S.C. Reule and
                                                                     Others.
                       (2001/C 134/20)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-91/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-163/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-90/00 (1)                                        (2001/C 134/24)
                       (2001/C 134/21)                               By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-163/00: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
from the register of Case C-90/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.