title: Case T-642/11 P: Order of the General Court of 4 September 2012 — Mische v Parliament (Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials — Distortion of the facts — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/25

      Order of the General Court of 4 September 2012 — Mische v Parliament
      (Case T-642/11 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials - Distortion of the facts - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
      (2012/C 331/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische and M. Velardo, lawyers)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jensen and J. Herrmann, Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament [2011] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Harald Mische shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings.

                  3.

                  The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-239/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter
   (Case C-239/17)
   (2017/C 221/17)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gert Teglgaard, Fløjstrupgård I/S

      Defendant: Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a situation where a farmer does not comply with the statutory management requirements and the good agricultural and environmental conditions in a calendar year, and a reduction is therefore to be applied to the farmer’s direct payments: see Article 6(1) of Council Regulation No 1782/2003, (1) read in conjunction with Article 66(1) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004, (2) is the aid reduction then to be calculated on the basis of the farmer’s direct payments:

                           (a)

                           in the calendar year in which the non-compliance occurs, or

                           (b)

                           in the (subsequent) calendar year of the determination/finding of the non-compliance?

               2.

               Is the result the same under the subsequent rules set out in Article 23(1) of Council Regulation No 73/2009, (3) read in conjunction with Article 70(4) and 8(a) of Commission Regulation No 1122/2009? (4)

               3.

               In a situation where a farmer does not comply with the statutory management requirements and the good agricultural and environmental conditions in 2007 and 2008, but the non-compliance is first determined/found in 2011, is it then Council Regulation No 1782/2003, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation No 796/2004, that applies in the calculation of the aid reduction, or is it Council Regulation No 73/2009, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, that applies?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ L 270, 2003, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ L 141, 2004, p. 18).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 30,2009, p. 16).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ L 316,2009, p. 65).


title: Case T-489/11: Action brought on 20 September 2011 — Rousse Industry v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/36

         Action brought on 20 September 2011 — Rousse Industry v Commission
   (Case T-489/11)
   2011/C 347/66
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rousse Industry (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Angelov and S. Panov, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re

   Application for annulment of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 13 July 2011 concerning State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009 granted by Bulgaria to Rousse Industry

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 13 July 2011 concerning State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009 granted by Bulgaria to Rousse Industry;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, insofar as according to that provision what the Commission regards as a failure by the State to take the steps necessary to recover the amounts owed to it is neither new State aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) nor an alteration to existing aid. The applicant also claims that there is no increase in the State’s overall financial burden; and even if that were the case, it would also not be a basis on which to regard the facts at issue as new aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the third ground referred to in Article 263(2) TFEU, insofar as the Commission, without adducing any proof and without providing reasons, incorrectly assumed that the fact that the State has not reclaimed the amounts owed constitutes an anti-competitive advantage for the company and is therefore incompatible with the internal market.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a procedural error because the Commission’s decision does not contain the reasons which led to the drafting of its conclusions.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, because the contested decision does not indicate either the level of the amount to be reclaimed from the applicant or the corresponding interest at a reasonable rate determined by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Case C-396/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Ciprian Vasile Radu

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Ciprian Vasile Radu
   (Case C-396/11)
   2011/C 282/29
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Constanța

      Party to the main proceedings

   Ciprian Vasile Radu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 5(1) and 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, provisions of primary Community law, contained in the founding Treaties?

               2.

               Does the action of the competent judicial authority of the State of execution of a European arrest warrant, entailing deprivation of liberty and forcible surrender, without the consent of the person in respect of whom the European arrest warrant has been issued (the person whose arrest and surrender is requested) constitute interference, on the part of the State executing the warrant, with the right to individual liberty of the person whose arrest and surrender is requested, which is authorised by European Union law, pursuant to Article 6 TEU, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

               3.

               Must the interference on the part of the State executing a European arrest warrant with the rights and guarantees laid down in Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, satisfy the requirements of necessity in a democratic society and of proportionality in relation to the objective actually pursued?

               4.

               Can the competent judicial authority of the State executing a European arrest warrant refuse the request for surrender without being in breach of the obligations authorised by the founding Treaties and the other provisions of Community law, by reason of the fact that the necessary conditions under Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, have not been cumulatively satisfied?

               5.

               Can the competent judicial authority of the State executing a European arrest warrant refuse the request for surrender without being in breach of the obligations authorised by the founding Treaties and the other provisions of Community law, on the ground that the State issuing the European arrest warrant has failed to transpose or fully to transpose or has incorrectly transposed (in the sense that the condition of reciprocity has not been satisfied) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

               6.

               Is the domestic law of Romania, a Member State of the European Union — in particular Title III of Law No 302/2004 — incompatible with Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which Article 6 TEU refers, and have the above provisions properly transposed into national law Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?


title: Action brought on 14 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-64/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97                        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/ 15
        purpose of the case described in Article 5 (4 ), are                          to an appreciable extent for the purpose of advertising
        Member States otherwise free to lay down rules on the                         his own business as such by creating a specific
        matter, or does Community law in general, or the                              suggestion of quality ?
        objective and tenor of Directive 89/104/EEC in
        particular, have the effect that Member States are not                   (') OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989, p . 1 .
        entirely free in that regard but must comply with
        specific restrictions, and if so which ?
( b ) If someone, without the authorization of the trade                         Action brought on 14 February 1997 by the Commission
        mark proprietor, makes use of that proprietor's trade                    of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
        mark, registered exclusively for specified goods, for                                               ( Case C-64/97)
        the purpose of announcing to the public that he (A )
        carries out repair and maintenance work on the goods                                                  ( 97/C 108/28 )
        which have been placed on the market under that
        trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent, or                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
         that he ( B ) is a specialist or is specialized with regard             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
        to such goods, does this, under the scheme of Article 5                  14 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
         of the Directive, involve :                                             Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                                Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
         (i)       use of the trade mark in relation to goods which              in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                   are identical to those for which it was registered,           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                   as referred to in Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a );                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
         ( ii ) use of that trade mark in relation to services
                   which must be deemed to constitute use of the
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 93/95/EEC of 29 October 1993
                   trade mark within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a )
                   or use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5               amending Directive 89/686/EEC on the approximation
                                                                                of the laws of the Member States relating to personal
                   ( 1 ) ( b ), on the assumption that it can be stated
                                                                                protective equipment ( PPE ) ( 1 ), the Italian Republic
                   that there is an identity between those services
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                   and the goods for which the trade mark was
                   registered;                                                   — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         ( iii ) use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5
                   (2 ; or                                                       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
          ( iv ) use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5                upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                    ( 5 )?                                                        Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
                                                                                down in directives for their transposition . That time-limit
                                                                                expired on 29 January 1994 without the Italian Republic
 (c ) For the purpose of answering Question ( b ), does it                        having brought into force the necessary provisions in
          make any difference whether announcement ( A) or                        order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
          announcement ( B ) is involved ?                                        Commission 's application.
                                                                                O OJ No L 276 , 9 . 11 . 1993 , p . 11 .
  ( d ) In the light of the provision in Article 7 of the
          Directive, does it make any difference, with regard to
          the question whether the proprietor of the trade mark
          can prevent use of his trade mark registered
          exclusively for specified goods, whether the use                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1 ? Juizo Civel da
          referred to in Question ( b) is that under points ( i ), ( ii ),        Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 29 January
           ( iii ) or ( iv )?                                                     1997 in the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA,
                                                                                against CTV — Confec^oes Texteis de Vouzela, Lda.,
                                                                                Amandio Mauricio Martins Pechim and Maria de Luz
   ( e ) On the assumption that both or one of the cases                                           Lima Barros Raposo Pechim
           described at the start of Question ( b ) involve the use
                                                                                ( Case C-66/97)
           of the proprietor's trade mark within the meaning of
           Article 5 ( 1 ), whether under Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a ) or ( b ),                                       ( 97/C 108/29
           can the proprietor prevent that use only where the
           person thus using the trade mark thereby creates the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           impression that his undertaking is affiliated to the                    European Communities by order of the 1 ? Juizo Civel da
           trade-mark proprietor's network, or can he also                         Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of
            prevent that use where there is a good chance that the                 29 January 1997, which was received at the Court
            manner in which the trade mark is used for those                       Registry on 17 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
            announcements may create an impression among the                       the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, against CTV
            public that the trade mark is in that regard being used                — Confeccoes         Texteis       de  Vouzela, Lda ., Amandio


title: Case C-13/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Staccata di Brescia by order of 13 November 2001 in the case of Casearia Bresciana Ca.bre.S.C.R.L. and Others against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (State Agricultural Market Intervention Body, A.I.M.A.)

text:
C 68/6                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.3.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                   d’État (Council of State), Belgium, of 8 January 2002, received
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione                    at the Court Registry on 22 January 2002, for a preliminary
Staccata di Brescia by order of 13 November 2001 in the               ruling in the case of ATRAL SA against the Belgian State, on
case of Casearia Bresciana Ca.bre.S.C.R.L. and Others                 the following questions:
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo (State Agricultural Market Intervention Body,
                             A.I.M.A.)
                                                                      A.    Should Council Directive 73/23/EEC (1) of 19 February
                         (Case C-13/02)                                     1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States
                                                                            relating to electrical equipment designed for use within
                         (2002/C 68/12)                                     certain voltage limits, Council Directive 89/336/EEC (2)
                                                                            of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                            Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility
                                                                            and Directive 1999/5/EC (3) of 9 March 1999 of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      European Parliament and of the Council on radio equip-
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                  ment and telecommunications terminal equipment and
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Staccata di Brescia                the mutual recognition of their conformity of 9 March
(Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Brescia Div-                   1999 be interpreted:
ision) of 13 November 2001, received at the Court Registry
on 17 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Casearia Bresciana Ca.bre. S.C.R.L. and Others against Azienda
di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (State Agricul-            (a)   as applicable to alarm systems and networks, in
tural Market Intervention Body, A.I.M.A. on the following                         particular to products of that type which use radio
questions:                                                                        transmission, commonly known as wireless alarm
                                                                                systems,
1.   May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 536/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  (b) and, if the answer thereto is in the affirmative, as
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or                   producing sufficiently significant harmonisation in
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate                     that field that national provisions governing the
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                        same field, such as Article 12 of the Law of 10 April
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                          1990 on caretaking firms, security firms and internal
                                                                                caretaking services and the Royal Decree of 23 April
If not,                                                                           1999 laying down the procedure for approving the
                                                                                alarm systems and networks referred to in the Law
2.   Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                          of 10 April 1990, must necessarily conform to
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                           them?
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     Article 39 of the EC Treaty (now article 33), in so far as
     they do not provide that derogations may be made                 B.    In the event that the reply to the first question is in the
     from the periods prescribed by those provisions for                    affirmative:
     the allocation of individual reference quantities, for
     adjustments and levies in cases of administrative or
     judicial challenge to those provisions?
                                                                            Should Article 3 of Council Directive 73/23/EEC of
                                                                            19 February 1973, Article 5 of Council Directive
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                             89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 and Article 6(1) of Directive
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                            1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                            of 9 March 1999 be interpreted as prohibiting national
                                                                            provisions which, as do Article 12 of the Law of 10 April
                                                                            1990 and the Royal Decree of 23 April 1999, make the
                                                                            placing on the market in a Member State of all alarm
                                                                            systems and networks lawfully produced and/or marketed
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                            in another Member State (...) subject to a prior authoris-
Belgium, by order of 8 January 2002 in the case of ATRAL
                                                                            ation procedure relating to components of those alarm
                  SA against the Belgian State
                                                                            systems and networks which satisfy the requirements of
                                                                            the directives referred to?
                         (Case C-14/02)
                         (2002/C 68/13)
                                                                            Secondly, should Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 Feb-
                                                                            ruary 1973, Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      1989 and Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parlia-
European Communities by order of the Conseil                                ment and of the Council of 9 March 1999 be interpreted


title: Case T-487/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (FACTORY FINISH)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/47

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (FACTORY FINISH)
   (Case T-487/07) (1)

   2009/C 205/87

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 289, 23.11.2002

text:
C 305/32        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         7.12.2002
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 305/65)
            Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 289, 23.11.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 274, 9.11.2002
         OJ C 261, 26.10.2002
         OJ C 247, 12.10.2002
         OJ C 233, 28.9.2002
         OJ C 219, 14.9.2002
         OJ C 202, 24.8.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-407/01: Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 369/8               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.12.2001
Action brought on 10 October 2001 by the Commission                        For the purposes of designating and revising the designation
        of the European Communities against Ireland                        of vulnerable zones, Article 6 of the directive requires Member
                                                                           States to carry out monitoring of nitrate concentrations and to
                                                                           review the eutrophic state of fresh surface waters, estuarial,
                        (Case C-396/01)                                    coastal and marine waters, according to specified timetables.
                                                                           The Commission contends that Ireland has failed in practice
                                                                           to monitor and review correctly in accordance with Article 6.
                        (2001/C 369/13)
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
                                                                               the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                               agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1).
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
—     declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Directive 91/676/EEC (1) concerning the protection
      of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from                                            (Case C-407/01)
      agricultural sources by failing, within the time-limits
      provided for in the Directive, to completely identify
                                                                                (2001/C 369/14)
      waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in accordance with the
      criteria set out in Annex I and to notify these to the
      Commission, to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to
      Article 3(2) and/or 3(4), to establish action programmes
      in accordance with Article 5, and to correctly and                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      completely carry out monitoring and review of waters in              ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (c);                        Communities on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                           Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and J.S. van
                                                                           den Oosterkamp, acting as Agents.
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  18 July 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001
                                                                                as regards safeguard measures with regard to imports
                                                                                from the overseas countries and territories of mixtures of
On the basis of the information available to it, the Commission                  sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating status for the
considers that Ireland has failed to identify waters in accord-                  period 1 July to 1 December 2001;
ance with the criteria of Annex I of the directive. In so far as
Ireland may argue that it has identified waters in accordance              —     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
with Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Commission would                         ings.
contend that Ireland has failed to notify the Commission of
these waters within the time-frame foreseen by Article 12 of
the directive.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Ireland has not established and applied action programmes
throughout its territory, as it is entitled to do under Article 3(5)       —     Connection with Regulation No 1325/2001, the annul-
of the directive. Therefore, the exemption, given in Article 3(5),               ment of which is the subject-matter of Case C-325/01 (1).
from the obligation to identify specific vulnerable zones does                   A ruling that Regulation No 1325/2001 is void will
not arise. However, Ireland has not designated any vulnerable                    remove any basis for Regulation No 1476/2001;
zones in accordance with Article 3(2) and/or 3(4). It is
currently the only Member State with a complete absence of                 —     Infringement of Article 109(1) of Council Decision
such designations. A corollary of Ireland’s failure to designate                 91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries
any vulnerable zones is its failure to establish any action                      and territories with the European Economic Community
programmes in accordance with Article 5 of the directive.                        (‘the OCT Decision’): in so far as the Commission takes
 ---pagebreak--- 22.12.2001                  EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 369/9
     the view — which is challenged by the Netherlands —                 Upon triangular outward processing, is an operator prohibited,
     that not only imports of mixtures of sugar and cocoa                upon a proper interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of the
     with EC/OCT originating status, but also imports of                 Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) (1)
     mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating                from deducting, on release of compensating products for free
     status, have an adverse effect on the sugar sector, it has          circulation, the amount of the import duties which would be
     failed in any way whatever to substantiate this;                    applicable to the temporary export goods in accordance with
                                                                         their correct tariff heading where their tariff heading declared
—    Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision: the             on their exportation was different because it was incorrect?
     Commission has failed to ensure that the safeguard
     measures adopted pursuant to the contested regulation
     will cause as little disruption as possible to the functioning
     of the association. The Commission has also failed to               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                             establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
     determine whether those safeguard measures will have                    19.10.1992, p. 1).
     the intended effect. Finally, the safeguard measures which
     have been adopted go further than is necessary: a
     safeguard measure providing simply for a minimum
     import price for ACP/OCT mixtures would have been
     adequate to achieve the desired objective and would have
     been less onerous for the OCT and the undertakings
     concerned;
—    Misuse of powers: Article 109 of the OCT Decision does
     not confer on the Commission any discretionary power
     to correct or supplement the opportunities for ACP/OCT              Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission
     originating status intended by the Council in cases where           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     the use of such an opportunity has consequences which                                               Belgium
     were envisaged or even intended when the OCT Decision
     was adopted;
                                                                                (Case C-415/01)
—    Infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-
     imate expectations;
                                                                                (2001/C 369/16)
—    Infringement of Article 253 EC: the safeguard measure in
     issue is in no way whatever supported by facts or figures.
(1) OJ C ... of ..., p. ...
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         19 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by G.V. Jordana and J. Adda, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
stance de Metz, by judgment of that court of 8 October
2001, in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur Principal des
                                Douanes                                  —     Declare that, inasmuch as the Flemish Region and the
                                                                               Walloon Region have failed to transpose Article 4(1) and
                                                                               (2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1),
                             (Case C-411/01)                                   to define special protection areas within their territories
                                                                               which are capable of being relied upon as against third
                                                                               parties and to take the measures necessary to ensure that
                             (2001/C 369/15)                                   the classification of a site as a special protection area
                                                                               automatically and simultaneously entails the application
                                                                               of a system of protection and conservation which is in
                                                                               line with Community law, the Kingdom of Belgium has
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal d’Instan-                   Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
ce (District Court), Metz, of 8 October 2001, which was                        conservation of wild birds, together with Article 4(4)
received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001, for a                       thereof, as partially amended, in accordance with Article 7
preliminary ruling in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur                          of Directive 92/43/EEC (2), by Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of
Principal des Douanes on the following questions:                              that same directive,


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97: Franco Campoli v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Judgment of the Court of First Instance - Application for review of classification in grade - Plea of inadmissibility - New material fact - Admissibility)

text:
C 378/18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
protected designation of origin Altenburger Ziegenkäse'            Action brought on 21 August 1998 by Takis Ageladarakis
for too large a geographical area Ð the Court of                    and Others against the Commission of the European
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A.                        Communities and the Council of the European Union
Kalageropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.                                          (Case T-137/98)
Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on
15 September 1998, in which it:                                                               (98/C 378/34)
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                         (Language of the case: English)
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to             An action against the Commission of the European
     bear jointly and severally the costs of the Commission         Communities and the Council of the European Union was
     and the intervening party, Molkerei und Weichkäserei           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     K.-H. Zimmermann GmbH;                                         Communities on 21 August 1998 by Takis Ageladarakis,
                                                                    represented by Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri
                                                                    Thompson, Monckton Chambers, 4 Raymond Buildings,
3. Orders Freistaat Thüringen to bear its own costs.                Gray's Inn, London WC1R 5BP, United Kingdom.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð make a declaration that the rejection of the applicants'
                                                                         complaint whereby the Commission and Council failed
                                                                         to take any specific measures vis-aÁ-vis the applicants
                                                                         to implement the judgment of the Court in Joined
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann et al. v.
                       (First Chamber)                                   Commission of 12 December 1996 is unlawful and a
                                                                         service-related fault for which the Commission and
                     of 12 October 1998                                  Council are liable;
in Case T-235/97: Franco Campoli v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                          Ð order that the Commission and Council pay the
                                                                         applicants the individual sums set out in the Schedule
(Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                                                                         attached to the Application at Annex 7 hereto,
Application for review of classification in grade Ð Plea of
                                                                         modified to the date of judgment; and, in the event
    inadmissibility Ð New material fact Ð Admissibility)
                                                                         that no order is made in respect of the applicants'
                        (98/C 378/33)                                    liability for United Kingdom taxation on such sums;
                (Language of the case: Italian)                          such further som as may represent:
                                                                         (i) the sum payable by the applicants in respect of
In Case T-235/97: Franco Campoli, an official of the
                                                                              United Kingdom taxation, the quantification of
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                              such sums being adjourned pending negotiation
Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari and
                                                                              between the parties and the United Kingdom tax
Brussels Bars, 205 Rue Belliard, Brussels, against the
                                                                              authorities; alternatively
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for annulment, first, of
the Commission's Decision of 16 October 1996 rejecting                   (ii) the actual liabilities for which the applicants are
the applicant's application for a review of his classification                liable to the United Kingdom tax authorities, the
and, second, of the Commission's Decision of 29 April                         Council and Commission being liable to indemnify
1997 rejecting the complaint against the Decision of                          the applicants in respect of any such contingent
16 October 1996 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                          liability; and
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J.
Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made            Ð order that the Council and Commission bear the costs
an order on 12 October 1998, the operative part of which                 of the proceedings.
is as follows:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.                          those raised in Case T-30/98 (1).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998, p. 11.


title: Case C-503/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/21

         Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-503/11 P)
   2011/C 347/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: ThyssenKrupp Elevator (CENE) GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Aufzuge GmbH, and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH (represented by: K. Blau-Hansen, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellants;

               —

               In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellants in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

               —

               In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in, inter alia, Case T-147/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission, in so far as it dismisses the action of 7 May 2007 against European Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Lifts and escalators) and concerns the appellants.
   The appellants allege the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of fundamental rights, in a total of four grounds of appeal:

               First, the appellants claim that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringements alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

               Second, the appellants allege that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission Decision which held the appellants to be jointly liable on the basis of the group turnover of ThyssenKrupp AG. Thus the judgment infringes Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, the rule of law in the form of the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege, the principle of proportionate penalties, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the fault principle. The judgment is unlawful, in that it rests on the assumption that a subsidiary forms, with its parent company (and other companies in the group), a liability-sharing group in the form of an economic unit. Further and independent thereof, it infringes the principle of fault, since the appellants together with their parent companies were fined as jointly and severally liable participants. In the alternative, the appellants claim that the General Court has confirmed the joint and several liability despite the liability not being allocated within the group.

               Third, the appellants claim that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier and the Commission’s insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellants and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein.

               Fourth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellants.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) 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 T-133/12: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Ben Ali v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Right to property — Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment — Non-contractual liability — Absence of material harm)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-133/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Right to property - Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Temporal adjustment of the effects of annulment - Non-contractual liability - Absence of material harm))
   2014/C 151/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Cujo and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant, and (ii) damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72, insofar as that annex has been extended by Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012, amending Decision 2011/72, and insofar as it includes the name of Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali;

               2.

               Declares that the effects of the annex to Decision 2011/72, as amended by Implementing Decision 2011/79 and extended by Decision 2012/50, with respect to Mr Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali shall be maintained until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present judgment or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until such time as that appeal is dismissed;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Call for applications for the post of Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               26.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/6

         CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
   for the post of Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union
   2010/C 168/06
   The post of Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union will soon become vacant. The Registrar will be appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.
   The Registrar is appointed for a term of six years. His status and conditions of employment are governed by the Statute of the Court of Justice, the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the rules governing the emoluments of the members of the Commission and of the Court of Justice (Regulation No 422/67/EEC of the Council of 25 July 1967).

      Nature of the Duties

   The Registrar assists the Court of Justice in the exercise of its judicial function. On that basis, he is responsible for ensuring that the duties described in Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice are performed.
   In addition, the Registrar is the secretary general of the institution, which comprises three courts: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. He is responsible, under the authority of the President of the Court of Justice, for the administration of the institution, and directs its staff and departments. By delegation from the Court of Justice, he performs the duties of authorising officer in respect of the appropriations in the institution’s budget.

      Requirements

   Candidates must:

               —

               be a national of one of the Member States of the European Union,

               —

               have completed legal studies attested by a university qualification and have a detailed knowledge of European Union law and the functioning of the Courts of the Union,

               —

               have 15 years’ professional experience, a significant part of which must have involved duties with a very high-level of responsibility,

               —

               have a very good knowledge of French and a good knowledge of one other official language of the European Union. Knowledge of other official languages will be taken into account.

      Submission of applications

   Applications are to be sent by email only to Greffier.CJUE@curia.europa.eu and must be received by the Court of Justice by 18 July 2010, at the latest. Applications must be accompanied by a curriculum vitae providing full details of the candidate’s age, nationality, university degrees, knowledge of any languages, present and past occupations and experience, if any, in judicial and international fields.


10.2.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-332/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/34)                                                     (2001/C 45/37)
By order of 20 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
from the register of Case C-440/99: Commission of the              ordered the removal from the register of Case C-332/99:
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 299 of 6.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/00 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-69/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/35)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/38)
By order of 25 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-48/00: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                           from the register of Case C-69/00: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-290/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-197/98 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/36)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/39)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-290/98: Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-197/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                         Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case T-84/17: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/54

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
   (Case T-84/17) (1)

   (2017/C 231/70)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case C-395/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2011 — BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2011 — BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid
   (Case C-395/11)
   2011/C 311/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

      Other Participant: Rolf & Co. OHG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the term ‘construction work’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Decision 2004/290/EC (1) encompass not only services but also supplies of goods?

               2.

               If the authorisation to designate the recipient of the supply as the person liable for tax also extends to supplies of goods:
               Is the authorised Member State entitled to exercise the authorisation merely partially in respect of certain subcategories, such as particular types of construction work, and in respect of supplies to certain recipients?

               3.

               If the Member State is entitled to form subcategories: Is the Member State subject to restrictions when forming subcategories?

               4.

               If the Member State is not entitled to form subcategories generally (see Question 2 above) or on account of its failure to observe restrictions (see Question 3 above):

                           (a)

                           What are the legal consequences of the impermissible formation of subcategories?

                           (b)

                           Is the effect of the impermissible formation of subcategories that the provision of national law is not to be applied only to the benefit of particular taxable persons or in general?

      (1)  Council Decision 2004/290/EC of 30 March 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 21 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 2004 L 94, p. 59).


title: Case T-301/08: Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Laura Ashley v OHIM — Tiziana Bucci (LAURA ASHLEY)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/21

         Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Laura Ashley v OHIM — Tiziana Bucci (LAURA ASHLEY)
   (Case T-301/08)
   (2008/C 247/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Laura Ashley Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Guise, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiziana Bucci (Viareggio, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 1237/2007-1 and reject the opposition; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LAURA ASHLEY’ for various goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25

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

      Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 311 675 of the figurative mark ‘Ashley's’ for goods in class 25; Italian trade mark registration No 517 151 of the figurative mark ‘Ashley's’ for goods in class 3, 18, 24 and 25; international trade mark registration No 646 926 of the figurative mark ‘Ashley's il primo Cashmere Italiano’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to establish whether the applicant was using the Community trade mark applied for without due cause.


title: Case C-551/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/32

         Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-551/09)
   2010/C 63/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and M. Adam, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               1.

               declare that, by failing to take all necessary measures to recover the aid in issue in Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/2006) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 1 to 3 of that Commission Decision;

               2.

               declare that, by failing to provide the Commission in good time with the information necessary for calculating the amount of the aid, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 288 TFEU and under Article 4 of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/2006) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland;

               3.

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that the period given to the Republic of Austria in Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/2006) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland to provide the information required for the purpose of calculating the amount of the aid has expired.
   An agreement reached by the Commission and the Republic of Austria after the expiry of the abovementioned period concerning the level of the amount to be recovered was, according to the Commission, revoked by the Republic of Austria on the ground that the company affected by the recovery claim intended, in the event of being obliged to pay, to cancel the purchase of Bank Burgenland. This, according to the Republic of Austria, would have had serious consequences for the economy of the Land of Burgenland. In the view of the Commission, however, this does not provide justification for waiving the demand for repayment.
   The judicial challenge to the abovementioned decision likewise does not affect the obligation to give effect to it.


title: Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG (C-585/08) and Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller (C-144/09) (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 15(1)(c) and (3) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Contract for a voyage by freighter — Concept of ‘package travel’ — Contract for a hotel stay — Presentation of the voyage and the hotel on a website — Concept of activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile — Criteria — Accessibility of the website)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG (C-585/08) and Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller (C-144/09)
   (Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1)(c) and (3) - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Contract for a voyage by freighter - Concept of ‘package travel’ - Contract for a hotel stay - Presentation of the voyage and the hotel on a website - Concept of activity ‘directed to’ the Member State of the consumer’s domicile - Criteria - Accessibility of the website)
   2011/C 55/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Pammer (C-585/08), Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH (C-144/09)

      Defendants: Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG (C-585/08), Oliver Heller (C-144/09)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichstshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) and (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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Minimum characteristics required of an internet site in order for the activities advertised on that site to be capable of being regarded as activities ‘directed’ to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A contract concerning a voyage by freighter, such as that at issue in the main proceedings in Case C-585/08, is a contract of transport which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation within the meaning of Article 15(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.

               2.

               In order to determine whether a trader whose activity is presented on its website or on that of an intermediary can be considered to be ‘directing’ its activity to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, it should be ascertained whether, before the conclusion of any contract with the consumer, it is apparent from those websites and the trader’s overall activity that the trader was envisaging doing business with consumers domiciled in one or more Member States, including the Member State of that consumer’s domicile, in the sense that it was minded to conclude a contract with them.
               The following matters, the list of which is not exhaustive, are capable of constituting evidence from which it may be concluded that the trader’s activity is directed to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, namely the international nature of the activity, mention of itineraries from other Member States for going to the place where the trader is established, use of a language or a currency other than the language or currency generally used in the Member State in which the trader is established with the possibility of making and confirming the reservation in that other language, mention of telephone numbers with an international code, outlay of expenditure on an internet referencing service in order to facilitate access to the trader’s site or that of its intermediary by consumers domiciled in other Member States, use of a top-level domain name other than that of the Member State in which the trader is established, and mention of an international clientele composed of customers domiciled in various Member States. It is for the national courts to ascertain whether such evidence exists.
               On the other hand, the mere accessibility of the trader’s or the intermediary’s website in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled is insufficient. The same is true of mention of an email address and of other contact details, or of use of a language or a currency which are the language and/or currency generally used in the Member State in which the trader is established.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009


title: Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Vittorio Sadini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-241/95)

text:
No C 64/22           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
    whatsoever, precisely because they are not paid in any         Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    other currency. The second concerns the fourth                 at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
    subparagraph of Article 82, which refers to the pensions       Hardt .
    which are to be paid in a currency other than Belgian
    francs and provides for a conversion operation only in
    this context .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
                                                                       application,
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Alberto                      — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
Castagnoli against the Commission of the European                      entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                         Communities                                   the dates on which they fell due,
                      ( Case T-239/95 )
                         ( 96/C 64/41 )                            — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                       proceedings.
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
An action against the Commission of the European                   in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
1995 by Alberto Castagnoli, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Segrate ( Milan ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
advocate with the right of audience before the Corte di
Cassazione of the Italian Republic, with an address for            Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Vittorio Sadini
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,              against the Commission of the European Communities
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt .                                                                ( Case T-241/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/43 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
    application,                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
    entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
    the dates on which they fell due,                              1995 by Vittorio Sadini, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities , residing in Segrate ( Milan ),
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the                      represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the
    proceedings .                                                  right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the
                                                                   Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                   at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those         Hardt .
in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the applicant's pension statements as from
                                                                       January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Eduardo Capuano                  application,
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                      ( Case T-240/95 )                            — order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their
                         ( 96/C 64/42 )                                entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
                                                                       the dates on which they fell due,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
An action against the Commission of the European                        proceedings .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December                The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
1995 by Eduardo Capuano, a former official of the                  in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission.
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Rome, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with
the right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the


title: Case C-399/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Constitucional Madrid — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Surrender procedures between Member States — Decisions rendered at the end of proceedings in which the person concerned has not appeared in person — Execution of a sentence pronounced in absentia — Possibility of review of the judgment)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Constitucional Madrid — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni
   (Case C-399/11) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Surrender procedures between Member States - Decisions rendered at the end of proceedings in which the person concerned has not appeared in person - Execution of a sentence pronounced in absentia - Possibility of review of the judgment)
   2013/C 114/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Constitucional Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Criminal proceedings against: Stefano Melloni

      Other party: Ministerio Fiscal

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Constitucional Madrid (Spain) — Interpretation of Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24) and of Articles 47, 48 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Decisions handed down at the end of proceedings during which the person concerned was not present in person — Execution of a sentence handed down in absentia — Possibility for the judgment to be reviewed

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the executing judicial authorities, in the circumstances specified in that provision, from making the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a sentence conditional upon the conviction rendered in absentia being open to review in the issuing Member State.

               2.

               Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is compatible with the requirements under Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the issuing Member State, in order to avoid an adverse effect on the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence guaranteed by its constitution.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case T-177/12: Action brought on 20 April 2012 — Spraylat v ECHA

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/26

         Action brought on 20 April 2012 — Spraylat v ECHA
   (Case T-177/12)
   2012/C 174/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Spraylat GmbH (Aachen, Germany) (represented by: K. Fischer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the administrative charge made known to it by the defendant on 21 February 2012 (invoice No 10030371);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         As a precautionary claim, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision SME(2012)1445 of 15 February 2012.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) and of Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 (2)

               The applicant submits that, as evidenced by both of the regulations, the sole permissible ground for the levying of an administrative charge under Article 13(4) of Regulation No 340/2008 is to cover the costs incurred by the ECHA in verifying a registration in relationship to the size of an undertaking, and that this was not taken into account when determining the administrative charge in accordance with the decision of the ECHA administrative council (MB/29/2010). It further submits that it is not permissible to determine the administrative charge payable on the basis of the size of an undertaking, since this leads to a situation whereby larger undertakings bear the brunt of the costs involved in the evaluation of smaller undertakings.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality
               Pursuant to this principle, the levying of an administrative charge by the defendant has to be proportionate to the work involved for the defendant. According to the applicant, a comparison of the fee (EUR 20 700) with the administrative work involved for the defendant, shows that this is not the case.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the general principle of equality
               In this regard, the applicant submits that the varying administrative charges levied in accordance with the size of an undertaking also constitutes unequal treatment, which is unlawful. Moreover, with the adjustment of its administrative practice, the defendant infringed the principle of equal treatment, in that it treated the applicant differently from other registered undertakings which the defendant permitted, after receiving a registration number, to make adjustments to the size of the undertaking registered so as to avoid the imposition of an administrative charge.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the right to good administration
               Although the defendant realised that, in practice, it is difficult to communicate the correct size of an undertaking for the purposes of registration, it did not provide the applicant with the opportunity — contrary to the right to good administration — to adjust its figures to avoid payment of the administrative charge.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: unlawful delegation of legislative competencies to the defendant
               Article 13(4) of Regulation No 340/2008 empowers the defendant to levy an administrative charge, without specifying the details of how a charge is to be levied or, in particular, any details regarding the charge itself. In the applicant’s view, this constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative competencies to the defendant.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).