title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 April 2000 in Case T-328/99 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
C 211/20               EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.7.2000
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                          Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/267/EC of 7 April
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European                         1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC
Communities (Agent: V. Kreuschitz), supported by Federal                     Treaty [IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct] (OJ 1999 L 106,
Republic of Germany (Agent: C.-D. Quassowski) and RAG                        p. 14) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented              order on 14 April 2000, the operative part of which is as
by M. Hansen and S.B. Völcker, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  follows:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch
and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — application for a declaration                    1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
that the Commission unlawfully refrained from examining the
alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the
context of the amalgamation carried out, and authorised by                   2. The costs are reserved.
the Commission, within the German coal industry — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and J. Azizi, A. Potocki,
M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 5 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. There is no need to give a ruling in the present case.
2. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    incurred by the applicant, apart from those relating to the grant
    to the two interveners of leave to intervene.
                                                                                of 12 April 2000
3. The interveners are to bear their own costs.
                                                                             in Case T-328/99 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                             (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE                                         In Case T-328/99 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
                                                                             Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by Raymond St John
                         of 14 April 2000                                    Murphy, Solicitor, of 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple,
                                                                             London, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: Richard Lyal) — application for compensation for
in Case T-144/99 R: Institute of Professional Representa-                    damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result
tives before the European Patent Office v Commission of                      of the Commission’s refusal to adopt interim measures with
                  the European Communities                                   respect to the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales
                                                                             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
                                                                             V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, R.M. Moura Ramos and
(Competition — Application for interim relief — Suspension
                                                                             P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
        of operation of a measure — Urgency — None)
                                                                             12 April 2000 in which it:
                         (2000/C 211/41)                                     1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the
                    (Language of the case: French)                               proceedings for interim relief before the President of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance.
In Case T-144/99 R: Institute of Professional Representatives
before the European Patent Office, established in Munich
(Germany), represented by R. Collin and M.-C. Mitchell, of the               (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Decker and Braun, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gippini
Fournier) — application for suspension of operation of


title: Case C-370/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Establishment of the positions to be adopted on behalf of the Community in a body established by a convention — Obligation to state reasons — Reference to the legal basis — 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES))

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-370/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Establishment of the positions to be adopted on behalf of the Community in a body established by a convention - Obligation to state reasons - Reference to the legal basis - 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES))
   2009/C 282/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Zadra, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Jacqué, F. Florindo Gijón and K. Michoel, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and I. Rao, Agents, and D. Wyatt QC)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Council Decision of 24 May 2007 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Community with regard to certain proposals submitted to the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Hague, Netherlands, 3-15 June 2007 — Choice of legal basis

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 24 May 2007 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Community with regard to certain proposals submitted at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), The Hague (Netherlands), 3 to 15 June 2007.

               2.

               Maintains in force the effects of the annulled decision.

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.09.2007.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 1997 in Case C-234/94 Waltraud Tomberger v. Gebrüder von der Wettern GmbH (Correction)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/3
     failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to the first             must be construed as not precluding the maintenance of a
     subparagraph of Article 8 (1 ) of Council Directive 83/            national charge having the characteristics of a stamp duty
     189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure                   levied on works contracts and contracts for the supply of
     for the provision of information in the field of                   materials or any kind of consumer article, to the exclusion
     technical standards and regulations, as amended by                 of a large portion of economic transcations in the Member
     Directive 88/182/EEC;                                              State concerned.
                                                                        O OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(') OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            of 10 July 1997
                           ( First Chamber)                             in Case C-234/94 Waltraud Tomberger v. Gebrüder von
                                                                                der Wettern GmbH (')
                      of 17 September 1997
                                                                                (Correction)
in Case C-130/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fazenda Pública v.                                        ( 97/C 318/05 )
Solisnor-Estaleiros Navais SA, also represented: Ministério
                                Público P )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(VAT — Article 33 of the sixth VAT Directive —
Maintenance of stamp duties — Stamp duty on the value
  of contracts relating to the construction of an oil tanker)           In Case C-234/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof for a
                             ( 97/C 318/04 )                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between Waltraud Tomberger and Gebriider von der
                                                                        Wettern GmbH on the interpretation of Articles 31 ( 1 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        and 59 of the fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
                                                                        25 July 1978 based on Article 54 ( 3 ) (g) of the Treaty on
                                                                        the annual accounts of certain types of companies ( OJ
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          L 222, 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 11 ) as amended by the seventh
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Council Directive 83/349/EEC based on Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g)
                                                                        of the Treaty on consolidated accounts ( OJ L 193 , 18 . 7.
                                                                        1983 , p. 1 ), the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of
In Case C-130/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (President of the Chamber),
of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal Administra                  C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P.
tive ( Supreme Administrative Court) Portugal, for a                    Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               Advocate-General, R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order
court between Fazenda Publica and Solisnor-Estaleiros
                                                                        on 10 July 1997 correcting the judgment of 27 June
Navais SA, also represented : Ministerio Publico — on the               1996 (2 ) the operative part of which should read as
interpretation of Article 33 of the sixth Council Directive             follows :
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                      Where
assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) and of
Article 378 of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                    — one company (the parent company) is the sole
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties ( OJ L 302,                    shareholder in another company (the subsidiary), and
15 . 11 . 1985, p. 23 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                      controls it,
composed of: L. Sevon, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate              — under national law, the parent company and the
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                         subsidiary form a group,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in
which it has ruled;
                                                                        — the financial years of the two companies coincide,
Article 33 of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                     — the subsidiary 's general meeting approved the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                           appropriation of certain profits to the parent company
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                      in respect of the financial year concerned,
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/4                    EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
— that general meeting took place before completion of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       the audit of the parent company 's annual accounts for
       that financial year, and
                                                                       A. Disallowance of expenditure in the olive
                                                                            oil sector
— the national court is satisfied that the subsidiary 's
       annual accounts for the financial year in question give
       a true and fair view of its assets and liabilities,             In the view of the Hellenic Republic the financial
       financial position and profit or loss,                          corrections in the olive oil sector are the result of a
                                                                       mistaken assessment of the factual circumstances and of
                                                                       the Commission exceeding the limits of its discretion . The
                                                                       Hellenic Republic had informed the Commission of the
it is not contrary to the rule laid down in                            objective difficulties of establishing a register of olive
Article 31 (1 ) (c) (aa) of the fourth Council Directive 78/           cultivation within the period laid down in Regulations
660/EEC based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the                ( EEC ) No 154/75 and ( EEC) No 3453/80 and had bona
annual accounts of certain types of companies, as                      fide collaborated with it to resolve those difficulties . It
amended by the seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC                    could, consequently, rely on the impossibility of
based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated              implementing a Community measure, in accordance with
accounts, for the national court to consider that the
                                                                       the case-law in Case C-52/84 Commission v. Belgium and
profits in question must be entered in the parent                      Case C-348/93 Commission v. Italy. Moreover, the flat
company 's balance sheet for the financial year in respect             rate reduction of the amount of aid for the production of
of which they were appropriated by the subsidiary.                     olive oil is arbitrary and exceeds the limits of the
                                                                       discretionary power of the Commission.
H OJ C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 , p . 2 .
( 2 ) OJ C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 , p . 3 .
                                                                       B. Disallowance of expenditure in the
                                                                            tobacco sector
                                                                       The Hellenic Republic claims that the Commission has
                                                                       wrongly interpreted the Regulations in question . It refers
Action brought on 4 July 1997 by the Hellenic Republic                 on this point to its arguments in Case C-61/95 on which
     against the Commission of the European Communities                the judgment of the Court of Justice is awaited and which
                                                                       concerned the accounts for the year 1991 .
                            ( Case C-243/97
                              ( 97/C 318/06
                                                                       C. Disallowance of expenditure for the
                                                                            cultivation of vineyards
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                 The applicant relies on the difficulties of establishing the
4 July 1997 by the Hellenic Republic, represented by                   vineyard register of which it informed the Commission
Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of the State Legal               and which the Council recognized, extending the period
Service, and Elli Mamouna, of the Special Legal                        for completing the register in question until 31 December
Department for the European Communities in the                         1998 . Moreover, the local controls of grubbed
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with an address for service in            up vineyards concerned 100% of the cases aided.
Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 177 Val Ste Croix.                    Consequently, the flat-rate financial correction of 2%
                                                                       imposed is unjustified.
The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                       D. Disallowance of expenditure in the public
                                                                            storage of cereal sector
— hold the application admissible,
                                                                      The Hellenic Republic maintains that for 1993 it applied
                                                                      in this sector a new control system, radically different
— annul or amend Commission Decision E(97) 1180                        from the previous system, and the Commission itself, in its
      final of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts          summary statement, acknowledged the improvements
      presented by the Member States in respect of the                made . Consequently a flat-rate correction of 2 % was
      expenditure for 1993 of the EAGGF, Guarantee                     imposed erroneously in that sector.
      Section, as regards the specifically-contested chapters
      which relate to financial corrections in the olive oil,
      tobacco, wine and cereals ( public storage ) sectors.


title: Case C-602/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2015 by Monster Energy Company against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-633/14: Monster Energy v EUIPO

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/15

         Appeal brought on 10 November 2015 by Monster Energy Company against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-633/14: Monster Energy v EUIPO
   (Case C-602/15 P)
   (2016/C 270/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 4 May 2016 the Court (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-520/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku (Poland) lodged on 30 September 2013  — Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz v Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku (Poland) lodged on 30 September 2013 — Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz v Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku
   (Case C-520/13)
   2014/C 253/19
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Urszula Leśniak-Jaworska, Małgorzata Głuchowska-Szmulewicz

      Defendant: Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku
   By order of 27 March 2014, the Court of Justice ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Sąd Rejonowy w Płocku.


C 387/26             lEN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 12 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 October                 The applicant also maintains that the contested decisions
1997 by Antonio Giannini, residing in Brussels,                    disregard the principle of the protection of legitimate
represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo Locchi, of the            expectations and are vitiated by a misuse of powers.
Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul :
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-396/94 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/48 )
     — the defendant's decision annulling notice COM/
         151/94,                                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     — notice COM/062/97,                                          By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
     — the defendant's decision No 4732 of 24 July 1997            removal from the register of Case T-396/94 : Centrale
         rejecting the complaint, which was notified to the        Bewerkingseenheid ( CBE) v. Commission of the European
         applicant on 30 July 1997,                                Communities .
                                                                   (') OJ C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the defendant to :
     — pay the applicant the difference between his salary
         and the salary improperly paid to the candidate
         appointed to the post in issue, by way of
         compensation for the non-material damage                          Removal from the register of Case T-23/97 (')
         suffered by him since the unlawful appointment of                                        97/C 387/49 )
         the latter,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
     — pay the applicant the difference between his
         current salary and the salary which he would have
         received in grade A3 since 28 April 1995 , by way         By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the Second
         of compensation for the material damage suffered           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
         by him,                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case T-23/97: AEVP —
                                                                    Associa^ao das Empresas de Vinho do Porto v.
      — pay all of the costs.                                       Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                    (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant contests the decisions taken by the
 defendant, in consequence of the judgment delivered by
 the Court of First Instance on 19 March 1997 in Case
 T-21/96 Giannini v. Commission, to annul vacancy notice                    Removal from the register of Case T-87/97 (')
 COM/151 /94, issued with a view to filling the post of                                          ( 97/C 387/50 )
 Head of Unit DG I/D/ l 'Negotiation and management of
 textile agreements; footwear and other industries', and to
 publish a new vacancy notice COM/062/97 in relation to                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 the same post.
                                                                     By order of 3 November 1997 the President of the First
                                                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Fie considers that the arguments advanced by the                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 defendant to justify the formulation of a fresh notice              Case T-87/97: Gustaaf van Dyck v. Commission of the
 corresponding to the same post are incorrect, and asserts           European Communities.
 that to seek to remove the defects which vitiated the
  notice annulled by the Court by adopting an act which,
                                                                     (') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.
  although in a new form, is vitiated by the same defects,
  amounts to an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the
  Court's judgment .


title: Case F-48/09: Action brought on 11 May 2009 — Schopphoven v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/48

         Action brought on 11 May 2009 — Schopphoven v Commission
   (Case F-48/09)
   2009/C 205/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nikolaus Schopphoven (Zemmer, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of EPSO’s decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for open competition EPSO/AD/117/08.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/117/08 and, so far as necessary, EPSO’s decisions rejecting the requests for reexamination made by the applicant;

               —

               annul the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/117/08;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-446/05: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Amann & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market in industrial thread — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Concept of a single infringement — Definition of the market — Fines — Upper limit for the fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence — Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Amann & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission
   (Case T-446/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in industrial thread - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Concept of a single infringement - Definition of the market - Fines - Upper limit for the fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
   2010/C 148/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Amann & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Bönnigheim, Germany) and Cousin Filterie SAS (Wervicq-Sud, France) (represented by: A. Röhling, M. Dietrich and C. Horstkotte, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Eickstädt, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Amann & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG and Cousin Filterie SAS to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 May 2005 in Joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02: References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di Milano and the Corte d'appello di Lecce in the criminal proceedings against Silvio Berlusconi, Sergio Adelchi, Marcello Dell'Utri and Others (Company law — Article 5 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 5 of the EC Treaty, in turn Article 10 EC) and Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, in turn, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) — First Directive 68/151/EEC, Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC and Seventh Directive 83/349/EEC — Annual accounts — Principle of a true and fair view — Penalties provided for in cases of false information on companies (false accounting) — Article 6 of First Directive 68/151 — Requirement that penalties for breaches of Community law be appropriate)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 3 May 2005
   in Joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02: References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di Milano and the Corte d'appello di Lecce in the criminal proceedings against Silvio Berlusconi, Sergio Adelchi, Marcello Dell'Utri and Others (1)

   (Company law - Article 5 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 5 of the EC Treaty, in turn Article 10 EC) and Article 54(3)(g) of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, in turn, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) - First Directive 68/151/EEC, Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC and Seventh Directive 83/349/EEC - Annual accounts - Principle of a true and fair view - Penalties provided for in cases of false information on companies (false accounting) - Article 6 of First Directive 68/151 - Requirement that penalties for breaches of Community law be appropriate)
   (2005/C 171/02)
   Language of the cases: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02: references for preliminary rulings under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Milano (C-387/02 and C-403/02) and the Corte d'appello di Lecce (C-391/02) (Italy), made by decisions of 26 October 2002, 29 October 2002 and 7 October 2002, received at the Court on 28 October 2002, 12 November 2002 and 8 November 2002 respectively, in the criminal proceedings against Silvio Berlusconi (C-387/02), Sergio Adelchi (C-391/02), Marcello Dell'Utri and Others (C-403/02) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   In a situation such as that in issue in the main proceedings, First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, cannot be relied on as such against accused persons by the authorities of a Member State within the context of criminal proceedings, in view of the fact that a directive cannot, of itself and independently of national legislation adopted by a Member State for its implementation, have the effect of determining or increasing the criminal liability of those accused persons.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case C-631/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — ‘Active ingredient’ — Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine — Paediatric use — Carrier protein — Covalent binding)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/7

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Arne Forsgren v Österreichisches Patentamt
      (Case C-631/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - ‘Active ingredient’ - Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine - Paediatric use - Carrier protein - Covalent binding)
      (2015/C 073/09)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Arne Forsgren

         Defendant: Österreichisches Patentamt

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  Articles 1(b) and 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, the possibility that an active ingredient can give rise to the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where the active ingredient is covalently bound to other active ingredients which are part of a medicinal product.

                  2)

                  Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient whose effect does not fall within the therapeutic indications covered by the wording of the marketing authorisation.

                  3)

                  Article 1(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a carrier protein conjugated with a polysaccharide antigen by means of a covalent binding may be categorised as an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of that provision only if it is established that it produces a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action of its own which is covered by the therapeutic indications of the marketing authorisation, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine, in the light of all the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and T-388/94: European Night Services Ltd (ENS) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Transport by rail - Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel - Restrictions on competition - Directive 91/440/EEC - Appreciable effect on trade - Supply of necessary services - 'Essential facilities' - Statement of reasons - Admissibility)

text:
7.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/15
    comply      with    Directive     96/97/EC     on    the       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
    men and women in occupational social security                  Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty
    schemes (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its      and Article 5 of the EC Treaty, together with Article 3 of
    obligations under that directive;                              Council Directive 96/97/EC, the French Republic was
                                                                   required to conform with that directive by 1 July 1997.
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                      (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 20.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          21 September 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                   of 15 September 1998                            Agreement (IV/34.600 Ð Night Services) (OJ L 259 of
in Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and                   7.10.1994, p. 20) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second
T-388/94: European Night Services Ltd (ENS) and Others             Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,
      v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                   has given a judgment on 15 September 1998, in which it:
(Competition Ð Transport by rail Ð Agreements on
overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel Ð
Restrictions on competition Ð Directive 91/440/EEC Ð               1. annuls       Commission       Decision    94/663/EC    of
Appreciable effect on trade Ð Supply of necessary services             21 September 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant
Ð Essential facilities' Ð Statement of reasons Ð                      to Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
                       Admissibility)                                  EEA Agreement (IV/34.600 Ð Night Services);
                       (98/C 340/26)
                                                                   2. orders the Commission to pay the costs;
         (Language of the case: English and French)
                                                                   3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                       Northern Ireland, as intervener, to bear its own costs.
In Joined Cases T-374/94: European Night Services Ltd              (1) OJ C 392 of 31.12.1994 and OJ C 386 of 31.12.1994.
(ENS), established in London, T-375/94: Eurostar (UK)
Ltd, formerly European Passenger Services Ltd (EPS),
established in London, represented by Thomas Sharpe
QC, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Alexandre
Nourry, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich, supported by SocieÂteÂ Nationale
des Chemins de Fer FrancËais (SNCF), established in Paris,           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of the Paris Bar, with an                              of 15 September 1998
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, T-384/94: Union                 in Case T-11/95: BP Chemicals Limited v. Commission of
Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC), established in                            the European Communities (1)
Paris, and NV Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), established             (State aid Ð Action for annulment Ð Time-limits Ð
in Utrecht, the Netherlands, represented by Erik H.                Persons individually concerned Ð Private market economy
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address           investor principle Ð Opening of the procedure provided
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc                                 for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty)
Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, and T-388/94: SocieÂteÂ
Nationale des Chemins de Fer FrancËais (SNCF),                                             (98/C 340/27)
established in Paris, represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                             (Language of the case: English)
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agents: Lindsey Nicoll and Paul Lasok),
against Commission of the European Communities                     In Case T-11/95: BP Chemicals Limited, established in
(Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Díaz, then          London, represented by James Flynn, Barrister, of the Bar
Giuliano Marenco and Ami Barav) Ð application for                  of England and Wales, and Alec Burnside, Solicitor, with
annulment of Commission Decision 94/663/EC of                      an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of


title: Case T-664/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/16

         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
   (Case T-664/11)
   2012/C 65/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1976/2010-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Mediterranea SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-637/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Laufen Austria AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-411/10 Laufen Austria v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/28

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Laufen Austria AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-411/10 Laufen Austria v Commission
   (Case C-637/13 P)
   2014/C 52/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Laufen Austria AG (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the arguments put forward by Laufen Austria AG in the present case;

               —

               set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-411/10;

               —

               uphold Laufen Austria AG’s claims by reducing the fine imposed on it;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Laufen Austria AG in the present case, as well as those incurred in Case T-411/10 in so far as the same grounds are concerned.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

                     First ground of appeal
                  , alleging an erroneous application of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the principles of proportionality and individual liability in relation to the fine imposed individually on Laufen Austria, AG for the infringement committed prior to its acquisition by Roca Sanitario, S.A.

               2.

                     Second ground of appeal
                  , alleging error of law in the application of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, of the principle that reasons must be stated and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (2)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p.1).

      (2)  OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2.


title: Case C-304/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/80/EC — Article 4(3) — Annex VI, Part A — Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants — Application — Aberthaw Power Station)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/21

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 September 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-304/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - Article 4(3) - Annex VI, Part A - Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants - Application - Aberthaw Power Station))
   (2016/C 419/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by G. Facenna QC)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing correctly to apply to Aberthaw Power Station (United Kingdom) Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) of that directive, read in conjunction with Part A of Annex VI thereto;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-395/09: Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Arques Industries v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/27

         Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Arques Industries v Commission
   (Case T-395/09)
   2009/C 297/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Arques Industries AG (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, B. Meyring and A. Scheidtmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C (2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 in Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide etc in so far as the decision is addressed to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 2(f) of the decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 3 of the decision in so far as they concern the applicant; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests Commission Decision C (2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 in case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries. The contested decision imposed a fine on the applicant and on other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant participated in a single and continuous infringement in the calcium carbide and magnesium sector in the EEA, except in Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the United Kingdom, which consisted in market sharing, agreements on quotas, customer allocations, price fixing and exchange of sensitive information relating to prices, customers and sales volumes.
   The applicant puts forward eight pleas in law in support of its action, which are set out in three parts.
   By the first part, the applicant seeks to have the contested decision annulled in so far as the applicant was found jointly and severally liable for the conduct of SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, and relies in that respect on the following pleas in law:

               —

               erroneous application of Article 81(1) EC and of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) in that the Commission deemed the applicant to be jointly and severally liable with SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH;

               —

               infringement of Article 253 EC since the Commission did not give reasons for the exercise of its discretion in relation to the applicant’s liability as a former parent company;

               —

               erroneous application of Article 81, since the defendant erred in law in its assumption as to the existence of a single and continuous infringement.

         By the second part, the applicant seeks, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it, and relies in that respect on the following pleas in law:

               —

               infringement of Article 253 EC since the contested decision is inherently contradictory as regards the level of the fine;

               —

               infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 since the Commission erred in its assessment of the gravity and duration of the infringement;

               —

               infringement of the general principle of equal treatment in relation to the gravity and duration of the infringement assumed by the Commission;

               —

               infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 since the Commission failed to take account of the mitigating circumstance that the applicant expressly did not dispute the Commission’s findings in the administrative procedure.

         In the third part, the applicant applies, in the alternative, for Articles 1 and 3 of the contested decision to be annulled in so far as they concern the applicant, since they are based on the erroneous application of Article 81 EC and Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 and are contrary to Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-51/05 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2005 (fax of 7 February 2005) by the Commission of the European Communities for the partial annulment of the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-166/98 between Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/17

         Appeal brought on 9 February 2005 (fax of 7 February 2005) by the Commission of the European Communities for the partial annulment of the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-166/98 between Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-51/05 P)
   (2005/C 82/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-166/98 between Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities represented by C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1 –

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission of the European Communities in so far as it accedes to the claim for damages against the Commission and, conseqeuently

               2 –

               deliver final judgment in the matter by dismissing that action as inadmissible;

               3 –

               order Cantina sociale di Dolianova and the other applicants at first instance to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission confines the present appeal to paragraphs 129 to 150 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance concerning the determination of the starting date of the five-year limitation period prescribed by Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. In the Commission's view, the assessment reached on the matter in the contested judgment – which found that time started to run for the purposes of that limitation period when the applicants realised that they would not receive payment of Community aid on the basis of the security lodged at the time by the DAI in favour of AIMA – is the result of a clear error of law.
   In determining the starting date of the limitation period of the action brought by the applicant cooperatives, the Court of First Instance failed wholly to take account of the fact that, from 1983, Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 (1) had objectively caused damage to those cooperatives, concentrating instead on the latter's perception of that damage. The Court found that it did not suffice that the applicants knew that they had suffered damage as a result of the application of Regulation No 2499/82; it also found to be necessary a wholly subjective element, namely the applicants' awareness that they could not obtain a remedy without bringing an action for damages against the Commission.
   Such a finding is contrary to settled Community case-law and to the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  OJ 1982 L 267 of 16.09.1982, p. 16 (no longer in force).


title: Case C-618/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Tort, delict or quasi-delict — Selective distribution network — Prohibition on online resale outside a network — Action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference — Connecting factor)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Concurrence SARL v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl
   (Case C-618/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Selective distribution network - Prohibition on online resale outside a network - Action for an injunction prohibiting unlawful interference - Connecting factor))
   (2017/C 053/21)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Concurrence SARL

      Defendants: Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted, for the purpose of conferring the jurisdiction given by that provision to hear an action to establish liability for infringement of the prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network resulting from offers, on websites operated in various Member States, of products covered by that network, as meaning that the place where the damage occurred is to be regarded as the territory of the Member State which protects the prohibition on resale by means of the action at issue, a territory on which the appellant alleges to have suffered a reduction in its sales.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-84/10: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Regione Puglia v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Decision incorporating reduction of financial assistance — Regional entity — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Regione Puglia v Commission
   (Case T-84/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - ERDF - Decision incorporating reduction of financial assistance - Regional entity - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 331/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and A. Steiblytė, agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, incorporating a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance granted in application of Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000, incorporating approval of the operational programme POR Puglia for the period 2000-2006, on the basis of Objective No 1.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Regione Puglia will bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs related to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-164/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 April 2017 — Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 April 2017 — Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala
   (Case C-164/17)
   (2017/C 178/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Edel Grace, Peter Sweetman

      Defendant: An Bord Pleanala

      Question referred

   Where

               a)

               a protected site has as its essential purpose the provision of habitat for a specified species

               b)

               the nature of the habitat which is beneficial for that species means that the part of the site which is beneficial will necessarily alter over time, and

               c)

               as part of a proposed development a management plan for the site as a whole (including changes to the management of parts of the site not directly affected by the development itself) is to be put in place which is designed to ensure that, at any given time, the amount of the site suitable as habitat as aforesaid is not reduced and indeed may be enhanced; but

               d)

               some of the site will, for the lifetime of the development project, be excluded from having the potential to provide appropriate habitat,
               can such measures as are described in (c) properly be regarded as mitigatory?


title: Case C-204/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 4 May 2015 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Latspas

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 4 May 2015 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Latspas
   (Case C-204/15)
   (2015/C 228/08)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      The other party to the proceedings being: SIA Latspas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the method laid down in that article is also applicable when the import of the goods and their release for free circulation in the customs territory of the Community took place as a consequence of the fact that during the process of transit the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods concerned being goods liable to import duties, and the goods were not sold for export to the customs territory of the Community but for export outside the Community?

               2.

               Should the expression ‘sequentially’ used in Article 30(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, in the light of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read together with the principle that reasons must be stated for administrative measures, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to conclude that the applicable method is that set out in Article 31 of the regulation, the customs authorities are under an obligation to state in all administrative measures why in those specific circumstances the methods for determination of customs value of goods set out in Articles 29 and 30 cannot be used?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case C-368/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/59/EC — Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues — Failure to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all ports)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-368/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/59/EC - Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues - Failure to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all ports)
   (2008/C 301/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and E. Montaguti, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, G. Fiengo and F. Arena, lawyers)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to prepare and adopt waste reception and handling plans for every Italian port, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Case T-56/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/47
In support of its claims the applicant alleges, in the alternative,              and the remuneration corresponding to classification in
that the defendant infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17,                  the next higher grade and step, together with default
Article 253 EC and the principles of proportionality and of                      interest at 5,7 % per annum as from 16 March 2001;
equal treatment by:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay damages and interests assessed,
—      imposing on the applicant a fine in excess of 10 % of its                 ex æquo et bono, at EUR 500 a month as from 16 March
       worldwide turnover;                                                       2001 until the date they are paid;
—      imposing on the applicant an global fine in respect of              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
       allegedly discrete infringements;
—      increasing the ‘starting amount’ as a deterrent and on the
       ground of aggravating circumstances;                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—      applying an excessive multiplication factor;
                                                                           The applicant in these proceedings challenges the decision of
                                                                           the appointing authority refusing to classify him in Grade A6,
—      not reducing the fine on the ground of attenuating                  Step 3, on his taking up his duties with the defendant following
       circumstances or by virtue of the ‘Amnesty Notice’ (1).             competition EUR/A/154 for the recruitment of administrators
                                                                           (career bracket A 7/A 6) in auditing and accounting.
( 1) Published in OJ 1996 C 207 p. 4.
                                                                           In support of his claims he alleges:
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, of
                                                                                the decision of 1 September 1983 on the criteria
                                                                                applicable to appointment to grade and classification in
                                                                                step on recruitment and of the Administrative Guide;
Action brought on 12 February 2003 by Philippe Brendel                     —     infringement of the principle patere quam ipse legem
     against Commission of the European Communities                              fecisti and of equal treatment;
                                                                           —     that there was in the circumstances a manifest error of
                           (Case T-55/03)                                        assessment;
                          (2003/C 101/82)                                  —     disregard of the duty to have regard to the interests of
                                                                                officials and the duty to state reasons;
                    (Language of the case: French)                         —     infringement of Article 39 EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2003 by Philippe
Brendel, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                           Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica S.p.A.
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-56/03)
—      annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
       3 May 2002 classing the applicant in Grade A 7, Step 2                                       (2003/C 101/83)
       with effect from 16 March 2001 and, so far as is
       necessary, annul the decision of 25 October 2002,
       notified on 4 November 2002, to reject the applicant’s                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
       complaint;
—      order the defendant to pay the balance of the remuner-
       ation consisting of the difference between the remuner-             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       ation corresponding to classification in Grade A 7, Step 2,         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/48                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica                 The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
S.p.A., represented by Ombretta Fabe Dal Negro, lawyer.                  in Case T-287/01.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002, p. 15.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (2 ) Not yet published.
—     declare that the European Commission has failed to
      perform Contract BM/1007/94 of 12 December 1994
      (thermie programme);
—     declare the contract terminated by the Commission;
—     in any event, order the European Commission to pay to              Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Acciaierie e
      the applicant compensation — to be decided in separate             Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in liquidation) against the
      proceedings — by way of compensation of the damages                         Commission of the European Communities
      sustained by the applicant as a result of the failure of the
      project;
                                                                                (Case T-58/03)
—     in the alternative, declare in any event that Bioelettrica
      owes no debt to the European Community in respect of                                         (2003/C 101/84)
      the funding received to date or any interest on the same,
      and
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Acciaierie e
                                                                         Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in liquidation), represented by
                                                                         Giovanni Vezzoli, Gianluca Belotti and Elisabetta Stefania
The present action concerns the same project as that in which            Piromalli, lawyers.
the Commission’s decision to withdraw is challenged in Case
T-287/01 Biolettrica v Commission (1) and T-42/03 Lurgi AG
and Lurgi S.p.A. v Commission (2). The applicant relies upon             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the statements made by the Commission in the context of the
termie project, as follows:                                              —     annul the contested decision;
—     6.9.2001 the Commission stated that the contract was at            —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed to take account
      an end;                                                                  of the fact that conduct subsequent to its going into
                                                                               liquidation (25 November 1998/4 December 1998) can-
                                                                               not be imputed to Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi
—     20.11.2001 the contract was regarded as still being in                   S.p.A. (in liquidation) and to take account of wrongful
      effect;                                                                  application of the increase in respect of duration to the
                                                                               whole of the basic fine as well as the specific financial
—     1.3.2002 the Commission confirmed that the contract                      situation of Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in
      was still in effect;                                                     liquidation), and
—     26.11.2002 the Commission stated that the contract was             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      at an end, having been terminated not on 26.11.2002
      but on 6.9.2001.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance has not
considered the merits of the Commission’s second revocation
of the contract, that being in issue in Case T-287/01, or the            The present action is brought against the same decision as that
lawfulness of the revocation of 6 September 2001, which was              challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. The pleas in
based on Article 8(2)(f) of the General Conditions, Annex II to          law and principal arguments are similar to those in that case.
the contract, whereas the termination of 26 November 2002                Of particular importance are pleas alleging infringement of the
is based on Article 8(2)(d) of the General Conditions.                   rights of the defence in the procedure conducted by the


title: Case T-258/06: Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2010 — Germany v Commission (Provisions applicable to public procurement — Contract awards not subject, or not subject in full, to the Public Procurement Directives — Interpretative communication of the Commission — Actionable measure — Measure intended to produce legal effects)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2010 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-258/06) (1)

   (Provisions applicable to public procurement - Contract awards not subject, or not subject in full, to the Public Procurement Directives - Interpretative communication of the Commission - Actionable measure - Measure intended to produce legal effects)
   2010/C 179/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Schima, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: G. de Bergues, subsequently by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Gracia, and finally by G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by: M. Fruhmann, C. Pesendorfer and C. Mayr, Agents); Republic of Poland (represented initially by E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, subsequently by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, K. Rokicka and K. Zawisza, and finally by M. Szpunar, Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: H. Sevenster, subsequently by C. Wissels and M. de Grave, and finally by C. Wissels, M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, Agents); European Parliament (represented by U. Rösslein and J. Rodrigues, Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: D. Tsagkaraki and M. Tassopoulou, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: Z. Bryanston-Cross, and subsequently by L. Seeboruth, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of the Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives (OJ 2006 C 179, p. 2).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament, the Hellenic Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 7 December 1995 in Case C-41/95: Council of the European Union v. European Parliament (Budget)

text:
No C 46/2           1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   17 . 2 . 96
    other than the staff of the artificial-insemination centres       certain categories ofthose products, to the exclusion oflocal
    which enjoy the monopoly, provided that it does not               products in the same category.
    contravene the principle of the free movement of goods
    by discriminating against imported products to the
                                                                      (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
    advantage of products of domestic origin.
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 December 1995
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  in Case C-41/95 : Council of the European Union v.
                     of 7 December 1995                                                  European Parliament (*)
in Case C-45/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                        (Budget)
Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia ): Cámara de                                            ( 96/C 46/03 )
Comercio, Industria y Navegación, Ceuta v. Municipality of
                              Ceuta ( 1 )
(Free movement of goods — Act of Accession of the                                    (Language of the case: French)
Kingdom of Spain — Provisions applicable to Ceuta and
Melilla — Charge having an effect equivalent to a customs             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
                                duty)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 96/C 46/02 )
                                                                      In Case C-41 /95 : Council of the European Union ( Agents :
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                      Jean-Paul Jacqué, Felix van Craeyenest and Yves Crétien ) v.
                                                                     European Parliament (Agents : Gregorio Garzón Clariana,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Christian Pennera and Peter Dyrberg) — application for the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    annulment of the act of the President of the European
                                                                      Parliament of 15 December 1994 declaring the final
                                                                      adoption of the general budget of the European Union for
In Case C-45/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        the financial year 1995 ( OJ 1994 L 369 , p. 1 ) — the Court,
the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia ( High         composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
Court of Justice ), Andalusia ( Spain ) for a preliminary ruling     Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A.
in the proceedings pending before that court between                  Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn
Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación, Ceuta and                 ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L.
municipality of Ceuta — on the interpretation of Article 25           Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the              General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal and the                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December
adjustments to the Treaties of 12 June 1985 ( OJ 1985 L 302,          1995, in which it:
p. 23 ), and of Protocol No 2 thereto, in conjunction with the
provisions of the EEC, now the EC, and ECSC Treaties
concerning the free movement of goods — the Court ( Fifth             1 . annuls the act of the President of the European
Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur),                      Parliament of 15 December 1994 declaring the final
President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho               adoption of the general budget of the European Union
de Almeida, C. Gulmann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro,                  for the financial year 1 995;
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 December 1995 , the              2 . preserves the effects of the 1 995 budget, as published in
operative part of which is as follows :                                   the Official Journal of the European Communities, until
                                                                          the date of the final adoption of the budget;
The provisions of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of
Portugal and the adjustments to the Treaties of 12 June               3 . dismisses the remainder of the action;
1 985 and of Protocol No 2 thereto, in conjunction with
Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty or Article 4(a) of the             4 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
ECSC Treaty, or with Article 95 of the EC Treaty, preclude
the levying by a Member State of a charge which, although
having the appearance of internal taxation, is, either by             (') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
reason of the wording of the provisions imposing it or by
reason of the manner in which the administrative authority
applies it, such as to be levied upon imported products or


title: Case T-470/04: Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Thomas Peyker against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/28

         Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Thomas Peyker against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-470/04)
   (2005/C 57/47)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 November 2004 by Thomas Peyker, residing in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision to award points making up the ‘rucksack’, and the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A6 in the 2003 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority's refusal to promote him to Grade A6 in the 2003 promotion procedure, and the award of insufficient, in that regard, merit/priority points making up his ‘rucksack’.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, and of the principles of non-discrimination and that officials should have reasonable career prospects.
   He submits, in that regard, that the refusal to award him special additional priority points just because, although he had been put forward for promotion by his Directorate-General in the preceding promotion procedure, he was not within the limit of 150 % of the available promotions, amounts to assimilating him to officials who were not put forward by their superiors for the preceding procedure, in breach of the principle that merit is the determining criterion for all promotions.
   In addition, transitional priority points were awarded in this case without taking account of the staff reports established for the reference period and without having considered comparative merits.


title: Case T-44/08: Order of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/57

         Order of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission
   (Case T-44/08) (1)

   2010/C 179/98

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-336/08: Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of an Easter bunny made of chocolate)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/17

         Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of an Easter bunny made of chocolate)
   (Case T-336/08)
   (2008/C 260/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2008 (Appeal Case R 1332/2005-4); and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A three-dimensional mark, representing an Easter bunny made of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 (Application No 3 844 446).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the trade mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character and its availability does not have to be preserved. Furthermore, the trade mark applied for demonstrates distinctiveness acquired through use for the purposes of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.

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


title: Case F-35/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Spitzer v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Spitzer v Commission
   (Case F-35/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/61)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20/7/2013, p. 58.


title: Case C-469/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal — Coordination in the fixing of prices — Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Scope of judicial review — Classification as an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-469/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal - Coordination in the fixing of prices - Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Scope of judicial review - Classification as an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’))
   (2017/C 202/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: FSL Holdings NV, Firma Léon Van Parys NV, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, advocaaten, and by C. Verdonck, avocate, J. Auwerx, advocaat, and B. Gielen, avocate)

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders FSL Holdings NV, Firma Leon Van Parys NV and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case C-300/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — M.G. Eman, O.B. Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag (European Parliament — Elections — Right to vote — Requirements of residence in the Netherlands for Netherlands citizens of Aruba — Citizenship of the Union)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — M.G. Eman, O.B. Sevinger v College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag
   (Case C-300/04) (1)

   (European Parliament - Elections - Right to vote - Requirements of residence in the Netherlands for Netherlands citizens of Aruba - Citizenship of the Union)
   (2006/C 281/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: M.G. Eman, O.B. Sevinger

      Defendant: College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Netherlands Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 17 EC and 19 EC, in conjunction with Articles 189 EC, 190 EC and 299 EC — Application of the provisions on citizenship of the Union to residents of the overseas countries and territories — Right of residents of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba to vote in elections to the European Parliament subject to a requirement of ten years' residence in the Netherlands
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Persons who possess the nationality of a Member State and who reside or live in a territory which is one of the overseas countries and territories referred to in Article 299(3) EC may rely on the rights conferred on citizens of the Union in Part Two of the EC Treaty.

               2.

               While, in the current state of Community law, there is nothing which precludes the Member States from defining, in compliance with Community law, the conditions of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament by reference to the criterion of residence in the territory in which the elections are held, the principle of equal treatment prevents, however, the criteria chosen from resulting in the different treatment of nationals who are in comparable situations, unless that difference in treatment is objectively justified.

               3.

               It is for the national law of each Member State to determine the rules allowing legal redress (rechtsherstel) for a person who, because of a national provision that is contrary to Community law, has not been entered on the electoral register for the election of the members of the European Parliament of 10 June 2004 and has therefore been excluded from participation in those elections. Those remedies, which may include compensation for the loss caused by the infringement of Community law for which the State may be held responsible, must comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.


title: Case T-87/10: Action brought on 23 February 2010 — Chestnut Medical Technologies v OHIM (PIPELINE)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/67

         Action brought on 23 February 2010 — Chestnut Medical Technologies v OHIM (PIPELINE)
   (Case T-87/10)
   2010/C 100/98
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chestnut Medical Technologies, Inc. (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 December 2009 in case R 968/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PIPELINE’ for goods in class 10

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment that the Community trade mark concerned has a descriptive character; infringement of Articles 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal, by ignoring arguments brought by the applicant, infringed upon the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision has been based.