title: Case C-31/05: Action brought on 28 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/12

         Action brought on 28 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-31/05)
   (2005/C 82/25)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michael Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with

                           —

                           Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7);

                           —

                           Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21);

                           —

                           Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33);

                     or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of the Access Directive, Article 18 of the Authorisation Directive and Article 28 of the Framework Directive.

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directives into national law expired on 24 July 2003.


title: Case F-17/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  — Marc Vereecken v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/38

         Action brought on 21 February 2006 — Marc Vereecken v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-17/06)
   (2006/C 96/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Marc Vereecken (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority (AA) dismissing the applicant's complaint, together with the decision of the AA of 19 October 2004 and the pay slips for the months of February 2005 et seq. in so far as they change the applicant's grade to A*8, and the decision awarding merit points, priority points and compensation points for leave on personal grounds (CCP) adopted by the AA;

               —

               Inform the AA of the consequences of annulling the contested decisions, and in particular: (i) the promotion of the applicant to grade A*10 (ex A6) with retroactive effect from 2001, or at least from 1 October 2004, when the applicant was re-employed; (ii) at least the promotion of the applicant to grade A*9 with effect from 1 October 2004; (iii) the award to the applicant of the points to which he is entitled with effect from his promotion, including merit points, priority points and transitional points for the CDRs 2003, 2004 and 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that he was not promoted to grade A*10 with effect from the 2001 promotion round or at least from 1 October 2004, including the consequences for his pension;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary loss sustained by the applicant by reason of the failure to establish Staff Reports for 1997-1999 and the excessively late establishment of the Staff Reports for 1999-2001 and of the Career Development Reports (CDR) for 2003 and 2004;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an Official of the Commission under the former grade A7 was reemployed on 1 October 2004 under grade A*8 following a CCP of three years.
   In his application he sets out four pleas in law, the first of which alleges the wrongful failure to establish or the late establishment of his Staff Reports for 1997-1999 and 1999-2001 and of his CDRs for 2003 and 2004.
   By his second plea, the applicant submits that his classification under grade A*8 following his CCP was contrary to Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. That decision also infringes the principle of equivalence between the old and new career structures and the principle of equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations.
   By his third plea, the applicant alleges that he was the victim of discrimination as compared with Officials in active employment in so far as, because he was on CCP, he did not benefit from the transitional measures which were applied to those Officials in relation to promotion.
   Lastly, by his fourth plea, the applicant challenges the failure to take account of his seniority attained before and during his CCP, in particular as regards the award of compensation points, merit points and priority points. He thus considers that he was worse off than Officials on secondment.


title: Case C-434/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany)) — Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts v Freerk Heidinga (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Transfer of payment entitlements — Definitive transfer)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany)) — Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts v Freerk Heidinga
   (Case C-434/08) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Transfer of payment entitlements - Definitive transfer)
   2010/C 179/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Arnold und Johann Harms als Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts

      Defendant: Freerk Heidinga

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Interpretation of Article 46(2) of 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 2007 L 270, p. 1) — Contractual clause, inserted into an agreement intended outwardly to effect a complete and definitive transfer of payment entitlements, according to which the transferee, as the formal owner of payment entitlements, is to activate those payment entitlements through cultivation of the corresponding land, but is to pass on to the seller a part of the payments received

      Operative part of the judgment

   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) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual arrangement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the object of which is to effect a definitive transfer of payment entitlements whereby the transferee, in his capacity as the person entitled to them, is to activate the payment entitlements and to pass on to the transferor, without any limit in time, the full amount, or a part thereof, of the payments received on that basis, provided that the purpose of such an arrangement is not to permit the transferor to retain a part of the payment entitlements which he has formally transferred, but to determine, by reference to the value of that part of the payment entitlements, the agreed price for the transfer of all the payment entitlements.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-201/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2010 — Market Watch v OHIM — Ares Trading SA (Seroslim) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Seroslim — Earlier Community word mark SEROSTIM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2010 — Market Watch v OHIM — Ares Trading SA (Seroslim)
   (Case T-201/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Seroslim - Earlier Community word mark SEROSTIM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 317/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ares Trading SA (Aubonne, Switzerland) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey and M. De Justo Vazquez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 805/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ares Trading SA and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-527/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Italy v Commission (State aid — Milk levy — Aid granted by Italy to milk producers — Aid scheme linked to the reimbursement of the milk levy — Conditional decision — Failure to comply with a condition which allowed the aid to be considered compatible with the internal market — De minimis aid — Existing aid — New aid — Alteration to existing aid — Procedure for reviewing State aid — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-527/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Milk levy - Aid granted by Italy to milk producers - Aid scheme linked to the reimbursement of the milk levy - Conditional decision - Failure to comply with a condition which allowed the aid to be considered compatible with the internal market - De minimis aid - Existing aid - New aid - Alteration to existing aid - Procedure for reviewing State aid - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof))
   (2015/C 262/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino and P. Grasso, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, D. Nardi and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/665/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.33726 (11/C) (ex SA.33726 (11/NN)) granted by Italy (deferral of payment of the milk levy) (OJ 2013 L 309, p. 40).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2013/665/EU of 17 July 2013 on the aid scheme SA.33726 (11/C) (ex SA.33726 (11/NN)) granted by Italy (deferral of payment of the milk levy);

               2.

               Annuls Articles 2 and 4 of that decision in so far as they concern, first, the aid scheme covered by Article 1(2) and, secondly, the individual aid granted pursuant to that aid scheme;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-301/17: Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/45

         Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000)
   (Case T-301/17)
   (2017/C 231/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘2000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 069

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 651/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.


title: Case F-44/11: Action brought on 13 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/34

         Action brought on 13 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-44/11)
   2011/C 186/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for an order that the Commission pay the applicant a sum by way of compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered because of the Commission's Medical Officer’s request to the applicant’s doctor to provide certain information.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision, in whatever form, rejecting the request in the applicant’s memorandum of 6 March 2010;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the measure, in whatever form, in which the Commission rejected the complaint of 3 September 2010;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, declare that Dr M., while an official of the European Commission: (a) asked Dr. U. to inform her whether the applicant ‘is currently receiving psychopharmacological treatment (neuroleptics, antidepressants) and if so what kind, or what other type of therapy he is receiving’; (b) informed Dr. U. that ‘in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations, applicable to all officials of the European Commission, Mr [ZZ] has been officially resident in Brussels from 1 April 2002 and no longer in Angola, as decided by [his] superiors. and officially notified to his patient’;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, find that each of the acts giving rise to the damage in question is unlawful, in particular as regards the cumulative effect of those acts;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, declare that each of the acts giving rise to the damage in question is unlawful, in particular as regards the cumulative effect of those acts;

               —

               order the Commission to pay without delay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000, together with the interest on that sum, at the rate of 10 % per year, with annual capitalisation, starting from 5 July 2010, or such sum, including all additional amounts, as the Tribunal may consider fair and just in order to compensate the applicant for the damage in question;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-116/10: Action brought on 10 November 2010 — Sandro Gozi v European Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/38

         Action brought on 10 November 2010 — Sandro Gozi v European Commission
   (Case F-116/10)
   2011/C 55/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Sandro Gozi (Sogliano al Rubicone, Italy) (represented by: L. De Luca and G. Passalacqua, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the request for reimbursement of the legal costs incurred by the applicant in criminal proceedings before a national court.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the measure taken by the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security — HR.D.2/MB/db Ares (2010) — Y96985

               —

               Recognise and declare the right of the applicant to reimbursement of legal costs and, consequently, order the payment of the sum of EUR 24 480.


title: Case C-66/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś v DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś v DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG
   (Case C-66/17)
   (2017/C 161/10)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś

      Defendant: DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

      Question referred

   Should Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (1) … (‘Regulation No 805/2004’), read in conjunction with Article 7 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that a European Enforcement Order certificate may be issued in respect of a decision concerning reimbursement of the costs of proceedings contained in a judgment in which a court has established the existence of a right?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.


title: Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Lando Tinelli against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-242/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           I EN 1              Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 64/23
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Lando Tinelli                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        Case T-242/95 )                             — order the defendants to pay to the applicant milk quota
                         ( 96/C 64/44                                   compensation ( SLOM-II ) for the period from 2 April
                                                                        1984 to 13 June 1991 , amounting to DM 118 436,52 ,
                                                                        together with 8 % interest from 19 May 1992, and to
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        pay the costs of the proceedings and the applicants'
                                                                        experts ' fees in the sum of DM 1 961,90,
An action against the Commission of the European                    — stay the proceedings.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
1995 by Lando Tinelli, a former official of the Commission          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the European Communities, residing in Rome,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the             in Case T-20/94 .
Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
Hardt .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Action brought on 3 January 1996 by Neue Maxhütte
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from
     January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
                                                                    Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
     application,
                                                                                Case T-2/96 )
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their                                        ( 96/C 64/46 )
     entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
     the dates on which they fell due,                                             (Language of the case: German)
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 3 January 1996
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those          by      Neue      Maxhütte        Stahlwerke    GmbH         of
in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission .                 Sulzbach-Rosenberg ( Germany), represented by Rainer
                                                                    Bierwagen ( Rechtsanwalt ) of Brussels, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and
                                                                    Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 2 January 1996 by Bernhard
                                                                    — annul Commission Decision K(95 ) 2828 final of
Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering Gesellschaft
bürgerlichen Rechts against the Council of the European                  18 October 1995 in so far as it affects the applicant,
Union and the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                        proceedings.
                          Case T-l /96 )
                          ( 96/C 64/45 )
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: German)                      The applicant, Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH of
                                                                     Sulzbach-Rosenberg, the ECSC steel producer to which
An action against the Council of the European Union and             loans described by the Commission as aids were granted,
the Commission of the European Communities was brought              maintains that the contested Decision infringes essential
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                  procedural requirements and principles.
 Communities on 2 January 1996 by Bernhard
 Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering Gesellschaft             In its submission, the Decision contained incorrect and
 bürgerlichen Rechts, Borken, represented by Bernd                   inadequate factual findings concerning the alleged aid .
 Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten and
 Dr. Frank Schulze, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an                  The proceedings concerning the privatization of Neue
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Maxhütte and the granting of the loans have the same
 Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .                              subject-matter, since the granting of the loans is part of the


title: Case C-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2016 by Meissen Keramik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-776/15 Meissen Keramik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/6

         Appeal brought on 28 December 2016 by Meissen Keramik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-776/15 Meissen Keramik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

   (Case C-686/16 P)
   (2017/C 161/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and Dr M. Bagh, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 October 2016 (T-776/15);

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2015 (Case R 0531/2015-1);

               —

               annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 January 2015;

               —

               order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs of all the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appeal is based on a misinterpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with an infringement of Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
   The basis for the claim that the Rules of Procedure were infringed is that the General Court did not base its judgment on the understanding of the word element of the trade mark which had been established in the Board of Appeal’s decision, but applied its own understanding of that word element and thus changed the subject-matter of the proceedings.
   The basis for the claim that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 was misinterpreted is that the General Court regards an indication of the geographical origin of a specific type of product that is designated by means of its main constituent material (Meissen Keramik) as descriptive even in relation to goods which contain components — no matter how insignificant — consisting of that material or goods which can be associated with goods of the type designated.

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


title: Case C-284/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/51/EC — Public procurement — Procedures for the award of contracts — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/27

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-284/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/51/EC - Public procurement - Procedures for the award of contracts - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 51/44)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros, D. Kukovec and P. Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: M.L. Fernandes, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-232/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee section — Decision ordering the reimbursement of sums paid as an advance)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-232/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Decision ordering the reimbursement of sums paid as an advance)
   (2007/C 170/37)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos, I. Chalkias and S. Chala, acing as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent, and by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/302/EC of 30 March 2004 on a financial contribution from the Community to expenditure incurred by Greece in establishing the Community vineyard register (OJ 2004 L 98, p. 57)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004 (formerly Case C-218/04).


title: Case T-254/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2008 — Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark RadioCom — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2008 — Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom)
   (Case T-254/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark RadioCom - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 171/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden Geschäftsfürhungs-GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2006 (Case R 1266/2005-1) concerning an application for registration of thee word mark RadioCom as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden Geschäftsführungs-GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-39/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S v Firma M. de Haan en W. de Boer (Brussels Convention — Proceedings to establish a fund to limit liability in respect of the use of a ship — Action for damages — Article 21 — Lis pendens — Identical parties — Court first seised — Identical subject-matter and cause of action — None — Article 25 — ‘Judgment’ — Article 27(2) — Refusal to recognise)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-39/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S v Firma M. de Haan en W. de Boer (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Proceedings to establish a fund to limit liability in respect of the use of a ship - Action for damages - Article 21 - Lis pendens - Identical parties - Court first seised - Identical subject-matter and cause of action - None - Article 25 - ‘Judgment’ - Article 27(2) - Refusal to recognise)
   (2004/C 300/06)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-39/02: reference to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, brought by the Højesteret (Supreme Court) (Denmark), by decision of 8 February 2002, received at the Court on 13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S and Firma M. de Haan en W. de Boer — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               An application to a court of a Contracting State by a shipowner for the establishment of a liability limitation fund, in which the potential victim of the damage is indicated, and an action for damages brought before a court of another Contracting State by that victim against the shipowner do not create a situation of lis pendens within the terms of Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

               2.

               A decision ordering the establishment of a liability limitation fund, such as that in the main proceedings in the present case, is a judgment within the terms of Article 25 of that Convention.

               3.

               A decision to establish a liability limitation fund, in the absence of prior service on the claimant concerned, and even where the latter has appealed against that decision in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the court which delivered it, cannot be refused recognition in another Contracting State pursuant to Article 27(2) of that Convention, on condition that it was duly served on or notified to the defendant in good time.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case T-479/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Garden)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/67

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Garden)
   (Case T-479/09)
   2010/C 24/118
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 — R 1044/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER Garden’ (Application No 4 935 144) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTER’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTER’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Class 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-540/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2006 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Immigration policy — Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals — Directive 2003/86/EC — Protection of fundamental rights — Right to respect for family life — Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/1

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2006 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-540/03) (1)

   (Immigration policy - Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals - Directive 2003/86/EC - Protection of fundamental rights - Right to respect for family life - Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children)
   (2006/C 190/02)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Caiola, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Petersen and M. Simm, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and C. Ladenburger, Agents) and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: A. Tiemann, W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the last subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) — Derogations from the right to family reunification of minor children.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.


title: Case C-451/09 P: Order of the Court of 12 May 2010 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council of the European Union and European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Proof of Community origin of products fished by a vessel owned by a company registered under Greek law — Failure to adopt provisions permitting the customs authorities of the Member States to accept documents issued by a non-Member State, other than form T2M)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/19

         Order of the Court of 12 May 2010 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council of the European Union and European Commission
   (Case C-451/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Proof of Community origin of products fished by a vessel owned by a company registered under Greek law - Failure to adopt provisions permitting the customs authorities of the Member States to accept documents issued by a non-Member State, other than form T2M)
   2010/C 234/29
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia (represented by: N. Skandamis and E. Perakis, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-162/07 Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission, in which that Court dismissed an action for damages to compensate for the damage alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that the Council and the Commission did not adopt provisions enabling the customs authorities of a Member State, in this case the Greek customs authorities, to accept as proof of the Community nature of products fished by a Greek vessel belonging to the applicant documents issued by a third State other than the T2M form provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (JO 1993 L 253, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2003 in Case T-14/01: Fiorenzo Rizzello v Commission of the European Communities (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff — Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)

text:
C 135/30                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 1 April 2003                                                              of 1 April 2003
in Case T-14/01: Fiorenzo Rizzello v Commission of the                      in Case T-15/01: Stefano Benini v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                    European Communities ( 1)
(Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-                     (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-
bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance                   bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance
with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second                       with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second
renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —                  renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —
             Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)                                         Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)
                          (2003/C 135/48)                                                              (2003/C 135/49)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-14/01: Fiorenzo Rizzello, a former member of                      In Case T-15/01: Stefano Benini, a former member of the
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European                       temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
Communities, residing in Varano Borghi (Italy), represented by              ties, residing in Besozzo (Italy), represented by B. Nascimbene
B. Nascimbene and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for               and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for service in
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                   Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal                      ties (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal Ferro) —
Ferro) — application for annulment of the decision of                       application for annulment of the decision of 28 September
28 September 2000 by which the authority empowered to                       2000 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts
conclude contracts of employment rejected the complaint                     of employment rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant
lodged by the applicant seeking a declaration that the employ-              seeking a declaration that the employment relationship which
ment relationship which bound him to the Commission was a                   bound him to the Commission was a relationship of indefinite
relationship of indefinite period under a contract as a member              period under a contract as a member of the temporary staff
of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Con-                 pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of
ditions of Employment of other Servants, renewed on more                    other Servants, renewed on more than one occasion with the
than one occasion with the effects referred to in the last                  effects referred to in the last paragraph of Article 8 of those
paragraph of Article 8 of those conditions — the Court of First             conditions — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,                 composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President of the Chamber,
President of the Chamber, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;                  P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2003, the                      order on 1 April 2003, the operative part of which is as
operative part of which is as follows:                                      follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                              1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.                              2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
( 1) OJ 2001 C 95.                                                          (1 ) OJ 2001 C 95.


3 . 2 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 31 / 17
        Removal from the register of Case C-82/94 ( )                 from the register of Case C-56/95 : Briihler Kreditbank eG v.
                                                                      Finanzamt Briihl .
                           ( 96/C 31 /35 )
By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-82/94 : Andreas Mohringer v.
Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
( ) OJ No C 120 , 30. 4 . 1994 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-86/95 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /38 )
                                                                      By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-108/94 ( )                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-86/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 31 /36 )                            European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 27 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/94 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-101/95 ( )
                                                                                96 /C 3 1 /3 9
                                                                      By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-56/95 ( )                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 96/C 31 /37 )                            from the register of Case C-101 /95 : Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               (•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               legal persons who are members of that association and
                                                                      whose names are included on the list annexed to the
                       ( Third Chamber)
                                                                      judgment, and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van
                   of 13 December 1995                                Levend Vee, along with the natural and legal persons who
in Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 Vereniging van                 are members of that association and whose names are
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van                included on the list annexed to the judgment, having their
Waaghouders van Levend Vee v. Commission of the                       registered offices in Roosendaal (Netherlands ), represented
                 European Communities ( ] )                           by Inne Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
(Live pigs — Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong,
93/1 77/EEC concerning certain protection measures, with              14 Rue des Bains, against Commission of the European
regard to swine vesicular disease, in the Netherlands and             Communities ( Agents : Thomas van Rijn, Tom Ottervanger
Italy — Actions for annulment — Actions for                           and Harold Nyssens ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and 93/1 77/EEC, of
                          compensation)
                                                                      26 February 1993 and 26 March 1993 respectively,
                           ( 96/C 31 /40 )                            concerning certain protection measures with regard to
                                                                      swine vesicular disease in the Netherlands and Italy ( OJ
                                                                      1993 No L 50 , p. 29 , and OJ 1993 No L 74, p. 88 ), and for
                                                                      the award of damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third
               (Language of the cases: Dutch)                         Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, acting as President,
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       13 December 1995 , in which it :
In Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 : Vereniging van
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, along with the natural and              1 . dismisses the applications;


title: Case C-284/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-64/12: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/10

         Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-64/12: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission
   (Case C-284/13 P)
   2013/C 215/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France (represented by: F. Brunet, E. Paroche, avocats, E. Bitton, advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Order in so far as it declared that Henkel’s head of claim of the action seeking the annulment of the contested decision before the General Court was inadmissible;

               —

               rule that Henkel’s action before the General Court is not devoid of purpose and is admissible, and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the appropriate facts;

               —

               annul the Order in so far as it ordered Henkel to pay its own costs and to bear the Commission’s costs (paragraph 3 of the operative part of the Order), and order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal contains three pleas, by which the Appellants dispute the General Court’s conclusion that they did not have an interest in bringing their appeal before the General Court against the contested decision. The General Court indeed wrongly ruled that the contested decision became devoid of purpose following the ADLC's decision in which the ADLC considered that the transmission of the documents was not necessary in order to guarantee the respect of the Appellants’ rights of defense and that the documents were not relevant for the analysis of the case before the ADLC.
   On the contrary, the Appellants claim that they had a legal interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court because it needs to rely on the documents in the French proceedings in order to prove that (i) the facts sanctioned in Case COMP/39.579 are the same or are at the very least closely related to the facts prosecuted in the French proceedings, which has a bearing on the Applicants’ leniency status in France; and (ii) Henkel’s insistence to be authorized to use the documents in the French proceedings should not be viewed as a leniency applicant's lack of cooperation justifying a fine reduction of 25 % instead of 30 %, as the ADLC judged, but should be viewed as the exercise of a legitimate right and interest, namely, the exercise of the rights of defense.
   This appeal is divided into three pleas:

               —

               First, the General Court distorted the facts because it erroneously held that there was no other procedural step following the ADLC's decision, in which the documents could be reviewed, if the contested decision was annulled and the documents were transferred to the ADLC;

               —

               Second, the Order is vitiated by a lack of reasoning because the General Court considered that Henkel had no interest in bringing proceedings without reviewing the arguments put forward by Henkel; and

               —

               Third, the General Court committed an error of law by failing to examine whether Henkel did not retain an interest in bringing proceedings before the General Court so as to avoid a repetition of an illegal act.

         For each of these reasons, the Appellants respectfully request the Court to annul the Order.


title: Case C-408/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 28 August 2014  — Aliny Wojciechowski v Office national des pensions (ONP)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 28 August 2014 — Aliny Wojciechowski v Office national des pensions (ONP)
   (Case C-408/14)
   2014/C 421/27
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aliny Wojciechowski

      Defendant: Office national des pensions (ONP)

      Question referred

   On a proper construction of the principle of sincere cooperation and Article 4(3) TEU, on the one hand, and of Article 34(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the other, is a Member State precluded from reducing or refusing a retirement pension payable to an employed person by virtue of the service performed, in accordance with the legislation of that Member State, where the total number of years worked in that Member State and within the European institutions exceeds the ‘occupational record unit’ of 45 years referred to in Article 10(a) of Royal Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 on the retirement and survival pension of employed persons?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2003 in Case T-208/01: Volkswagen Ag v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicle — Article 81(1) EC Price agreement — Meaning of agreement — Proof of the existence of an agreement)

text:
C 71/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.3.2004
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 December 2003
                      of 3 December 2003
                                                                          in Case T-16/02: Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                          the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
in Case T-208/01: Volkswagen Ag v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                          — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive mark —
                                                                          Distinctive character acquired through use — Word mark
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicle —                            TDI — Right to be heard — Scope of the duty to state
Article 81(1) EC Price agreement — Meaning of agreement                   reasons — Consequences of a breach of the duty to state
           — Proof of the existence of an agreement)                                                    reasons)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/43)
                         (2004/C 71/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-16/02, Audi AG, established in Ingolstadt (Germany),
                                                                          represented by L. von Zumbusch, lawyer, v Office for Harmon-
                                                                          isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
In Case T-208/01, Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg                 (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider): Action
(Germany), represented by R. Bechtold, lawyer, v Commission               against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
of the European Communities (Agent: W. Mölls): Application                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/711/EC of                       Designs) of 8 November 2001 (Case R 652/2000-1), as
29 June 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the             rectified by decision of 19 November 2001, on the application
EC Treaty (Case COMP/F-2/36.693 Volkswagen) (OJ 2001                      for registration of the word mark TDI as a Community trade
L 262, p. 14) or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of          mark, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
the fine imposed on the applicant, the Court of First Instance            of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi           D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the            judgment on 3 December 2003, in which it:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December 2003, in
which it:
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the action;
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2001/711/EC of 29 June 2001              2.    Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of its own costs
      relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty                and pay three quarters of those incurred by the Office for
      (Case COMP/F-2/36.693 — Volkswagen);                                      Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs);
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                             3.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear one quarter of its own costs
                                                                                and pay one quarter of those incurred by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Case C-218/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — ADV Allround Vermittlungs AG, in liquidation v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf (VAT — Sixth Directive — Articles 9, 17 and 18 — Determination of the place where services are supplied — Concept of ‘supply of staff’ — Self-employed persons — Need to ensure that a provision of services is assessed identically in relation to the provider and in relation to the recipient)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — ADV Allround Vermittlungs AG, in liquidation v Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf
   (Case C-218/10) (1)

   (VAT - Sixth Directive - Articles 9, 17 and 18 - Determination of the place where services are supplied - Concept of ‘supply of staff’ - Self-employed persons - Need to ensure that a provision of services is assessed identically in relation to the provider and in relation to the recipient)
   2012/C 73/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ADV Allround Vermittlungs AG, in liquidation

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Bergedorf

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzamt Hamburg — Interpretation of the sixth indent of Article 9(2)(e) and Articles 17(1), 17(2)(a), 17(3)(a) and 18(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Determination of the place where a service, consisting of the provision to the recipient of the service of self-employed persons not in the employ of the provider, is deemed to be supplied for tax purposes — Concept of ‘staff’ — Need to ensure an identical assessment of whether a transaction is liable to VAT in relation to the service provider, on the one hand, and to the recipient of that service, on the other

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The sixth indent of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘supply of staff’ referred to in that provision also includes the supply of self-employed persons not in the employ of the trader providing the service.

               2.

               Articles 17(1), 17(2)(a), 17(3)(a) and 18(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as not requiring the Member States to amend their domestic procedural rules in such a way as to ensure that the taxability and liability to value added tax of a service are assessed in a consistent way in relation to the provider and in relation to the recipient of that service, even though they fall within the jurisdiction of different tax authorities. However, those provisions require the Member States to adopt the measures that are necessary to ensure that value added tax is collected accurately and that the principle of fiscal neutrality is respected.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 June 2002 in Case C-177/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))

text:
27.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 180/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 June 2002
                            of 6 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-177/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-146/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls
Directive 90/641/Euratom — Protection of workers —                                                         (PCB/PCT))
Outside workers exposed to the risk of ionising radiation
            during their activities in controlled areas)                                                (2002/C 180/12)
                           (2002/C 180/11)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)                                              in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-177/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:
                                                                            G. de Bergues and D. Colas): Application for a declaration that,
                                                                            by failing to communicate to the Commission a summary of
                                                                            the inventories of equipment with PCB volumes of more than
In Case C-146/01, Commission of the European Communities                    5 dm3, a plan for the decontamination and/or disposal of the
(Agent: L. Ström, assisted by M. van der Woude) v Kingdom of                inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein, and an
Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx): Application for a declaration that,             outline for the collection and subsequent disposal of equip-
by failing to adopt or to notify to the Commission, within the              ment which is not subject to inventory in accordance with
prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative                 Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September
provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4(2), 5 and 6 of,              1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and
and Annexes I and II to, Council Directive 90/641/Euratom of                polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31),
4 December 1990 on the operational protection of outside                    as referred to in Article 6(3) of that directive, the French
workers exposed to the risk of ionising radiation during their              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and
activities in controlled areas (OJ 1990 L 349, p. 21), the                  11 of that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under               of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                     A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur)                General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                   2002, in which it:
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June
2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities a summary of the inventories of
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,           equipment with PCB volumes of more than 5 dm3, a plan
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to            for the decontamination and/or disposal of the inventoried
      comply with Articles 4(2), 5 and 6 of, and Annexes I and II                 equipment and the PCBs contained therein, and an outline for
      to, Council Directive 90/641/Euratom of 4 December 1990                     the collection and subsequent disposal of equipment which is
      on the operational protection of outside workers exposed to the             not subject to inventory in accordance with Article 4(1) of
      risk of ionising radiation during their activities in controlled            Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on
      areas, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated
      under that directive;                                                       terphenyls (PCB/PCT), as referred to in Article 6(3) of that
                                                                                directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 4 and 11 of that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                            2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.


title: Case T-272/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/26

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — P-D Glasseiden and Others v Commission
   (Case T-272/14)
   2014/C 223/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (Oschatz, Germany) P-D Interglas Technologies GmbH (Erbach, Germany), P-D Industriegesellschalt mbH, Glasfaser Brattendorf (Wilsdruff STT Grumbach, Germany) and Glashütte Freital GmbH (Freital, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) and the special compensation regime did not constitute an allocation of State or State-controlled resources. All the facts relevant to the qualification of those measures were determined in the preliminary proceedings between the Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. There were no longer any doubts, which the Commission should have found in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty

                           —

                           The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicants observe in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of audi alteram partem

                           —

                           The applicants also claim that the defendant adopted the contested decision without previously giving the applicants the opportunity to provide comments.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 11th Chamber of the Tribunal du Travail (Labour Court), Brussels, by a judgment of that court of 22 April 1996 in the case of Louis Wolfs v. Office National des Pensions (Case C-154/96)

text:
No C 197/ 12           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                              6 . 7. 96
Rijk, represented by Nicolas Lhoest, with an address for              1 . Is the introduction by a Member State of a flexible
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 1                 retirement system in accordance with Council
rue Glesener .                                                              Recommendation 82/857/EEC of 10 December 1982 on
                                                                            the principle of a Community policy with regard to
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                            retirement age (*) covered by the exclusion provided for
                                                                            in Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
                                                                            19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation
1 , declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                         of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
                                                                            in matters of social security ( 2 ), in the sense that the
2 , consequently:                                                           fixing of a flexible retirement age for men and women,
                                                                            for instance between the ages of 60 and 65 years, cannot
    ( a ) annul the judgment delivered;                                     be treated purely and simply in the same way as the
                                                                            setting of an age for terminating employment identical
    ( b ) itself determine the case and, adjudicating on his                for everyone and, even coupled with maintenance of a
          initial application:                                              different pension calculation for men and women, is not
                                                                            necessarily contrary to the principle of equal treatment
          — annul the decision of 18 January 1994 by which                  for men and women laid down in Article 4 ( 1 ) of
              the respondent decided to reimburse to the                    Directive 79/7/EEC, since under such a system all future
              appellant the sum of Bfrs 4 412 under the                     pensioners will have the option of freely determining
              supplementary sickness insurance scheme,                      when their pension will commence on the basis of their
                                                                            own work record; this will in particular be the case if the
          — in so far as may be necessary, annul the                        system thus introduced corresponds to a necessary aim
              respondent's decision of 15 July 1994 rejecting               of the State's social policy and is justified on grounds
              the appellant's complaint dated 18 April                      unrelated to discrimination on grounds of sex ?
               1994 ,
          — order the respondent to pay the full difference           2 . If the answer is in the negative, does the achievement
              between the expenditure actually incurred and                 of the objectives laid down by Directive 79/7/EEC
              the payments due under the joint sickness                     and Recommendation 82/857/EEC, namely the
              insurance scheme, amounting in the present                    introduction of a flexible retirement age for everyone
              case to Bfrs 4 950 ,                                          and equality for men and women in matters of social
                                                                            security, when account is also taken of the combination
          — declare that the general rules implementing                     of formal equality with substantive discrimination
              the first and second paragraphs of Article 24                 existing between men and women in connection with
              of the Staff Regulations are unlawful, and                    statutory retirement pensions, require a Member State
                                                                            in mechanical fashion to level the conditions of
              consequently annul them;
                                                                            entitlement to retirement pension downwards, by
                                                                            ensuring that men and women are entitled to take a
    (c ) order the respondent to pay all the costs of the
                                                                            retirement pension, as they choose, from the lowest age
          appeal and of the proceedings at first instance .
                                                                            and according to the method of calculation applied
                                                                            hitherto to the category which became entitled from that
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                   age to a retirement pension, despite the consequences for
advanced in the application at first instance .                             the financial equilibrium of retirement systems which
                                                                            were not set up on the basis of those principles ?
(!) OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 24 .
                                                                      3 . Further, in the event that the first question is answered in
                                                                            the negative, should the solution most favourable to the
                                                                            person concerned, with regard to Community law, be
                                                                            applied to the entire work record of the person
                                                                            concerned or may it be applied only to the years of work
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 11th Chamber                    recorded subsequent either to entry into force of the
of the Tribunal du Travail ( Labour Court), Brussels, by a                  Law introducing a flexible age of retirement, or the
judgment of that court of 22 April 1996 in the case of Louis                date of the judgment given by the Court of Justice
            Wolfs v. Office National des Pensions                           of the European Communities on 1 July 1993 in
                                                                            Case C-l 54/92 Van Cant v . Office National des
                        ( Case C-154/96 )                                   Pensions ( 3 )?
                          ( 96/C 197/22 )
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No L 357, 18 . 12 . 1982 , p . 27; EE 05 F3 , p . 39 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                ( 2 ) OJ No L 26 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 4; EE 05 F2 , p . 174 .
European Communities by a decision of the Tribunal du                 ( 3 ) OJ No C 204 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 7.
Travail ( 11th Chamber ), Brussels, of 22 April 1996, which
was received at the Court Registry on 7 May 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Louis Wolfs v. Office
National des Pensions on the following questions :


title: Joined Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany)) — Rhiannon Morgan (C-11/06) v Bezirksregierung Köln, Iris Bucher (C-12/06) v Landrat des Kreises Düren (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 17 EC and 18 EC — Refusal to award an education or training grant to nationals of Member States pursuing their studies in another Member State — Requirement of continuation between studies pursued in another Member State and those pursued previously for at least one year in an establishment in the student's Member State of origin)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany)) — Rhiannon Morgan (C-11/06) v Bezirksregierung Köln, Iris Bucher (C-12/06) v Landrat des Kreises Düren
   (Joined Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 17 EC and 18 EC - Refusal to award an education or training grant to nationals of Member States pursuing their studies in another Member State - Requirement of continuation between studies pursued in another Member State and those pursued previously for at least one year in an establishment in the student's Member State of origin)
   (2007/C 315/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Aachen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rhiannon Morgan (C-11/06), Iris Bucher (C-12/06)

      Defendants: Bezirksregierung Köln (C-11/06), Landrat des Kreises Düren (C 12/06)
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Interpretation of Articles 17 EC and 18 EC — Refusal to award an education or training grant (‘Ausbildungsförderung’) to a national who is residing and pursuing studies in another Member State on the ground that that national has not completed at least the first year of those studies in an established situated within the national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 17 EC and 18 EC preclude, in circumstances such as those in the cases before the referring court, a condition in accordance with which, in order to obtain an education or training grant for studies in a Member State other than that of which the students applying for such assistance are nationals, those studies must be a continuation of education or training pursued for at least one year in the Member State of origin of those students.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case T-719/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Implied rejection decision — Decision rejecting the complaint — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — LP v Europol
   (Case T-719/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Implied rejection decision - Decision rejecting the complaint - Duty to state reasons - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff))
   (2017/C 070/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: LP (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [confidential]
       (2), and seeking annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders LP to bear his/her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office (Europol) in the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

      (2)  Confidential information hidden.


title: Case F-128/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Adolf and Others v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/67

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Adolf and Others v Commission
   (Case F-128/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/131)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 56.


title: Action brought on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries Limited and Tata International Limited against the Council of the European Union (Case T-88/98)

text:
C 234/36              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
provide an appropriate steatement of reasons for the                 concerned manufactured and exported to the Community
adoption of an anti-dumping duty in this form, thereby               by the applicants.
denying the applicant its fundamental right to a fair
hearing.                                                             The applicants plead infringement of the following articles
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2):
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 449/98, OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
    p. 15.
(2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.                                       Ð Articles 2(8) and 2(9), in that the export price is
                                                                          determined as the price charged by Tata International
                                                                          to unrelated customers in the Community.
                                                                     Ð Article 2(10) in that, as an adjustment pursuant to
                                                                          Article 2(10)(i), a notional commission payment is
Action brought on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                        deducted from the export price.
Limited and Tata International Limited against the
                Council of the European Union                        Ð Article 18(3), in that, owing to continue reliance on
                        (Case T-88/98)                                    information which was known to be incorrect, any
                                                                          reasonably accurate finding was made impossible and,
                         (98/C 234/68)                                    finally,
                (Language of the case: English)                      Ð Article 20(4), because of failure to give adequate
                                                                          disclosure of the essential facts and considerations.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98, OJ L 50 of 20.2.1998,
Communities on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                          p. 1.
Limited and Tata International Limited, represented by               (2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.
Jean-FrancËois Bellis and Philippe De Baere, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Action brought on 8 June 1998 by National Association
Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98               of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) against the
     of 16 February 1998 imposing a definitive anti-                           Commission of the European Communities
     dumping duty on the imports of stainless steel                                          (Case T-89/98)
     fasteners and parts thereof originating in, inter alia,
     India, in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping                                 (98/C 234/69)
     duty on stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof
     manufactured and exported by the applicants; and                               (Language of the case: English)
Ð order the Council to bear the costs of these                       An action against the Commission of the European
     proceedings.                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators
                                                                     (NALOO), represented by Mark Cran QC and Mark
                                                                     Hoskins, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicants are limited companies established under               Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue Aldringen.
the laws of India. Kundan manufactures stainless steel
fasteners and sells them to Tata International, which,
being an export trading company, exports them to                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
independent importers within the Community.
                                                                     Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
By Article 1(2) of the contested regulation (1) a definitive              1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel fasteners                 submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of                 void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan                     against the CEGB; and
and Thailand has been imposed. On imports of the
products concerned exported by Kundan Industries Ltd./              Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
Tata Export Ltd., Mumbai' a definitive duty of 47.4 % has                 1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
been imposed.                                                             submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
                                                                          void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
The present application for annulment is directed against                 against British Coal; and
Article 1 of the contested regulation in so far as it imposes
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the products            Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.