title: Case T-343/11: Action brought on 28 June 2011 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/41

         Action brought on 28 June 2011 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-343/11)
   2011/C 252/91
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree, B. Koopman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/244/EU of 15 April 2011, notified on 18 April 2011, on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as Article 1 of that decision concerns the Netherlands and in so far as it concerns the exclusion of the sum of EUR 22 691 407,79 from the financing applicable to the expenditure declared in 2006 to 2008 in connection with operational programmes and the recognition of producer organisations;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In Decision 2011/244/EU the Commission treated all costs relating to printing on packages, regardless of the nature and purpose of such printing, as general production costs within the meaning of Annex II to Commission Regulation No 1433/2003, (1) and accordingly deemed those costs to be ineligible for Community financing. The Netherlands Government takes the view that the printing on packages of a brand or trade mark of producer organisations which also has a promotional intent must be treated as generic promotion and/or promotion of quality labels and promotion of producer organisations’ brands/trade marks. The costs of such operations are in fact eligible under Annex I to Regulation No 1433/2003.
   Further, in Decision 2011/244/EU the Commission excluded altogether from financing expenditure in the context of the operational programmes of the producer organisation FresQ for marketing years 2004 to 2007 on the basis that FresQ did not satisfy the terms and conditions for recognition under Regulations No 2200/96 (2) and No 1432/2003. The Commission bases that assessment on the finding that some of FresQ’s subsidiary sellers were exclusively marketing the products of one producer, and that as a result of the presumed influence of that producer on the subsidiary, FresQ was no longer fulfilling its central management role in relation to marketing and price setting. The Netherlands Government challenges that assessment and also the related finding that the Netherlands authorities should have withdrawn recognition of producer organisation FresQ.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3) and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 (4) in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 2200/96 and Article 8, in conjunction with Annex I, points 8 and 9, of Regulation No 1433/2003, in so far as expenditure on printing on packages was treated as general production costs and accordingly excluded from financing.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 in conjunction with Article 11 of Regulation No 2200/96 and Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 1432/2003, in so far as it was concluded that producer organisation FresQ did not fulfil the terms and conditions for recognition.

               3.

               In the alternative, third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 in conjunction with Article 21 of Regulation No 1432/2003, in so far as all of the aid received by FresQ for the marketing years 2004 to 2007 was considered ineligible for Community co-financing.

               4.

               In the further alternative, fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 and Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, as well as of the principle of proportionality, since the amount of financial correction is disproportionate to the actual financial risk to the Agricultural Fund.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational funds, operational programmes and financial assistance (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 25).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case C-230/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Metropolitan SpA, formerly Metropolitan Srl, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/16

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Metropolitan SpA, formerly Metropolitan Srl, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-230/13 P)
   2013/C 207/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Metropolitan SpA, formerly Metropolitan Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (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: Case F-77/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Colovea v European Parliament

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/16

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Colovea v European Parliament
   (Case F-77/06)
   (2006/C 237/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Fotini Colovea (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the European Parliament′s decision of 20 September 2005, confirmed 19 April 2006;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was recruited by the European Parliament as a member of the temporary staff at Grade B5 on 1 May 1981. On 4 August 2005 she introduced a request of to work part time in preparation for retirement, as provided for by Article 55a of the Staff Regulations and Article 4 of Annex IVa of the Staff Regulations. In the calculation of the percentage of the basic salary to which the applicant was entitled, the administration did not take into account the years of pensionable service that the applicant had acquired before being recruited by the European Parliament.
   In support of his action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law:

               —

               firstly, breach of Article 2 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               secondly, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials;

               —

               thirdly, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case C-153/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement — Direct taxation — Income tax — Tax exemption restricted to winnings from lotteries and games of chance organised by certain national bodies and entities)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-153/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement - Direct taxation - Income tax - Tax exemption restricted to winnings from lotteries and games of chance organised by certain national bodies and entities)
   2009/C 282/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC and Article 36 EEA — National legislation under which amounts won in lotteries and games of chance organised abroad, but not in certain lotteries or games of chance organised in Spain, are subject to income tax.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force fiscal legislation which exempts winnings from lotteries, games of chance and betting organised in the Kingdom of Spain by certain public bodies and entities established in that Member State and pursuing social or charitable non-profit-making activities, without that same exemption being granted to winnings from lotteries, games of chance and betting organised by bodies and entities established in another Member State of the European Union or European Economic Area and pursuing the same type of activities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case T-642/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Store (cushe) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark cushe — Earlier national word mark SHE and figurative mark she — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Store (cushe)
   (Case T-642/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark cushe - Earlier national word mark SHE and figurative mark she - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wolverine International, LP (George Town, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Plesser and R. Heine, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: BH Store BV (Curaçao, Curaçao, Autonomous Territory of the Netherlands) (represented by: T. Dolde, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2013 (Case R 1269/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between BH Store BV and Wolverine International, LP.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wolverine International, LP to pay the costs, apart from those incurred by BH Store BV before the Cancellation Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Rejects the claim of BH Store relating to the costs it incurred before the Cancellation Division.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 December 1995 in Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten (Treatment of an occupational pension fund as an undertaking - Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme - Compatibility with the rules of competition - Whether a point of Community law may be raised for the first time in cassation, thereby altering the subject-matter of the proceedings and entailing an examination of facts)

text:
16 . 3 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 77/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       court to apply Articles 3 (f), 85, 86 and 90 of the EC
                     of 14 December 1995                                   Treaty even when the party with an interest in
                                                                           application of those provisions has not relied on them,
in Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431 /93 ( references for a                  where domestic law allows such application by the
preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ):                   national court.
Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van
Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten ( 1 )
                                                                       2 . Community law does not require national courts to raise
(Treatment of an occupational pension fund as an                           of their own motion an issue concerning the breach of
undertaking — Compulsory membership of an                                  provisions of Community law where examination of
occupational pension scheme — Compatibility with the                       that issue would oblige them to abandon the passive role
rules ofcompetition — Whether a point of Community law                     assigned to them by going beyond the ambit of the
may be raised for the first time in cassation, thereby altering            dispute defined by the parties themselves and relying on
the subject-matter of the proceedings and entailing an                     facts and circumstances other than those on which the
                     examination of facts)                                 party with an interest in application of those provisions
                          ( 96/C 77/01 )                                   bases his claim .
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                          (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431 /93 : references to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hoge
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Raad der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands )
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                                    ( Fourth Chamber )
that court between Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes                                      of 14 December 1995
Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen and Stichting Pensioenfonds
voor Fysiotherapeuten — on ( i ) the interpretation of                 in Joined Cases C-106/94 and C-139/94 ( references for a
Community law with regard to the power of a national                   preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Bourges ( France)
court to consider of its own motion the compatibility of a             and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris ): criminal
rule of domestic law with Articles 3 ( f), 5 , 85 , 86 and/or 90       proceedings against Patrick Colin and Daniel Dupré ( } )
of the EC Treaty and ( ii ) the interpretation of those                (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain
provisions — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                    chemicalproducts — Throatpastilles — Tonic beverages —
Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                               Tariff classification)
Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.                                        ( 96/C 77/02 )
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,                           (Language of the case: French)
P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, and H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 ,              (Provisional translation; the definitive verison will be
in which it rules :                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
 1 . In proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations            In joined Cases C-106/94 and C-139/94 : references to the
     freely entered into by the parties, it is for the national        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Cour


title: Case C-328/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/48/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-328/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/48/EC - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 92/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and Corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2)

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-63/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner Skripalle, in the presence of the Bundesministerium der Finanzen (Tax provisions - Sixth VAT Directive - Taxable amount - Personal relationship between the supplier and the recipient of the supply)

text:
12 . 7 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 212/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                       (Second Chamber)
                            of 29 May 1997                                                          of 29 May 1997
in Case C-63/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                     in Case C-93/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach                   from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Indústria e
                                                                                Comércio Têxtil SA (ICT) v. Fazenda Pública ( 1 )
           v. Werner Skripalle, in the presence of the
              Bundesministerium der Finanzen ( 1 )                       (Anti-dumping duty — Council Regulation (EEC) No 738/
                                                                         92 — Free-at-frontier price — Increase in the event of
(Tax provisions — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable                                                   deferred payment)
amount — Personal relationship between the supplier and
                   the recipient of the supply)                                                       ( 97/C 212/10 )
                             ( 97/C 212/09
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                      In Case C-93/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                         Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                         Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court ) for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
In Case C-63/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to                     court between Industria e Comercio Textil SA ( ICT) and
 Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof                    Fazenda Publica — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 3 )
 (Federal Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the                  of Council Regulation (EEC) No 738/92 of 23 March
 proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt                  1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports
 Bergisch Gladbach and Werner Skripalle, in the presence                  of cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey ( OJ No
 of the      Bundesministerium        der  Finanzen    —   on   the       L 82, 27. 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber),
 interpretation of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC                 composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G.
 of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                   Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur), Judges; N.
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                        Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
 system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                   a judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
 ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
 Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
 President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward,                     The increase provided for in Article 1 (3) of Council
 J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann ( Rapporteur), Judges;                     Regulation (EEC) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992 imposing
 N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. A. Riihl, Principal                   a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton yarn
 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                originating in Brazil and Turkey must be applied
 29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :                                     whenever it is agreed that imported goods are to be paid
                                                                          for more than 30 days after their arrival in the customs
                                                                          territory of the Community, even where the difference
                                                                          between the price for deferred payment and that for
 An authorization by the Council to introduce a special                   payment CAD is greater, in percentage terms, than the
 measure for derogation from the sixth Council Directive                  increase to be applied. That increase must be based on the
  (77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of                      price actually paid or payable for the goods when they are
  the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes                sold for export to the customs territory of the Community,
 — common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                     excluding charges for interest as consideration for the
  assessment) whereby, in order to prevent tax avoidance, in              deferred payment terms granted, provided that those terms
  the case of supplies for consideration made between                     are the subject of a 'financing arrangement ' within the
  associated persons the cost to the taxable person within                meaning of Article 3 (2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
  the meaning of Article 11 (A) (1) (c) of the sixth Directive            No 1495/80 of 11 June 1980 implementing certain
  is to be used as the minimum basis of assessment is not                 provisions of Articles 1 , 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
  covered by Article 27 of the Directive where the agreed                  (EEC) No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs
  consideration represents the market rate but is less than               purposes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
  the minimum basis of assessment. .                                      No 220/85 of 29 January 1985, and that the level of
                                                                           charges reflects current prevailing rates.
   (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                           (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2003 in Case T-287/02 Asian Institute of Technology v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research contract — Time-limit — Inadmissible)

text:
20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/17
annulment of the implied decision of the Court of Auditors                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
rejecting the applicant's request for reinstatement following                                         INSTANCE
leave on personal grounds of 22 January 2001, and the Court
of Auditors" decision of 12 December 2001 rejecting the com-                                       of 15 May 2003
plaint lodged by the applicant on 14 August 2001 and, second,
compensation for material and non-material loss allegedly suf-            in Case T-47/03 R: Jose Maria Sison v Council of the
fered by the applicant, — the Court of First Instance (R. García-                                  European Union
Valdecasas, single Judge); J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 2003, in which it:             (Interlocutory proceedings — Restrictive measures with a
                                                                          view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds —
                                                                          Disallowance of benefits — Partial inadmissibility of the
1.   Dismisses the application;                                                       orders sought — Urgency — Absence)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/36)
2.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In Case T-47/03 R, Jose Maria Sison, resident in Utrecht (the
(1) OJ No C 131 of 1 June 2002.                                           Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H.E. Schultz,
                                                                          D. Gurses, T. Olsson and J. Lamchek, lawyers, against Council
                                                                          of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and
                                                                          M. Bishop): Application for, first, an order suspending the
                                                                          operation of Decision 2002/974/EC implementing Article 2
                                                                          (3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive mea-
                                                                          sures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC
                                                                          (OJ 2002 L 337, p. 85) in so far as it mentions the name of the
                         of 25 June 2003                                  applicant, second, an order requesting the Council not to
                                                                          include the applicant in any new decision implementing
in Case T-287/02 Asian Institute of Technology v                          Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, third, an order
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                         requesting the Council to inform all Member States that the
                                                                          restrictive measures adopted in relation to the applicant have
(Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research                   no legal basis, the President of the Court of First Instance made
            contract — Time-limit — Inadmissible)                         an order on 15 May 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
                         (2003/C 226/35)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed;
In Case T-287/02: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), whose              2.   Costs are reserved.
registered office is at Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by
H. Teissier du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: P. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 4 July
2000 to conclude a research contract under the ‘Asia-Invest’
programme with the Center for Energy-Environment Research
and Development — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 25 June 2003, in which it:                                                           of 16 May 2003
                                                                          in Case T-140/03: Forum 187 ASBL v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.   Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Declining of jurisdiction)
2.   Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those incurred by
     the Commission.                                                                               (2003/C 226/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.                                                 In Case T-140/03, Forum 187 ASBL, represented by A. Sutton
                                                                          and J. Killick, Barristers, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci, R. Lyal and G. Rozet):


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2000 in Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 — Temporary derogation in favour of existing trade marks — Inadmissibility)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 316/23
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, and pay the costs                                of 7 August 2000
      incurred by the defendant.
                                                                          in Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen against the Court
                                                                                of Auditors (1)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                 (Officials — Request for retirement on grounds of invalidity
                                                                          — Absence of positive medical developments — Action
                                                                          manifestly unfounded in law — Action manifestly inadmis-
                                                                                sible)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen, temporary official of
                                                                          the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
                      of 20 September 2000                                at Nittel (Germany), represented by Alain Lorang, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at his Chambers, 51 Rue Albert 1er against Court of Auditors
in Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer v the European Parlia-                   of the European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, J. Inghel-
                               ment (1)                                   ram and P. Giusta) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Court of Auditors refusing to retire him on
(Officials — Appointment on promotion — Grade LA 3 —                      ground of total permanent invalidity — the Court of First
           Consideration of the comparative merits)                       Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                          on 7 August 2000 the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (2000/C 316/43)
                                                                          1.    The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and
                                                                                as manifestly unfounded in law.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.
In Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer, official of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 C 281.
Parliament, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Gestion
Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’Anna) — application for
the annulment of the decision of 7 January 1999, first, in so
far as it appoints Ms. Dhyvert to the post of Depute Head of
Division of the German Translation Division at the European                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Parliament and, secondly, in so far as it rejects the applicant’s
candidature for the post — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                       of 11 July 2000
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 September 2000, in               in Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
which it:                                                                 Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1.    dismisses the application;                                          (Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1804/1999 — Temporary derogation in favour of exist-
2.    orders each party to bear its own costs.                                          ing trade marks — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/45)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
                                                                          gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/24                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distributeurs de                   taken by the Commission in a letter of 21 January 2000
Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (Setrab), established in               addressed to the applicant’s legal adviser, the Court of First
Paris, and Est Distribution Biogram SARL, established at                    Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
Château-Salins (France), represented by D. Leermakers, of the               R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Brussels and Luxembourg Bars, and C. Hatton, Solicitor, with                has made an order on 11 July 2000, in which it:
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Messrs De Meester and Oostvogels, 5 Place du Théâtre, v                     1.    Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible.
Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and J. Mon-
teiro) — application for partial annulment of Council Regu-                 2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs and to reimburse the
lation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing                            Commission all the expenses which the latter has incurred in
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of                              dealing with the applicant’s requests which gave rise to that
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on                        action and which form its subject-matter.
agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-
duction (OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and                   (1) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 11 July 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    There is no need to rule on the applications of the Commission,
      of Danone SA, of Compagnie Gervais Danone, of CLESA SA                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      and of SKW Biosystems GmbH for leave to intervene.
3.    The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs                                  of 31 July 2000
      incurred by the Council.
                                                                            in Case T-43/00: Javier Martı́nez Lara and Milva Urbán
4.    The Commission, Danone SA, Compagnie Gervais Danone,                            Penón v Council of the European Union (1)
      CLESA SA and SKW Biosystems GmbH, as applicants for
      leave to intervene, are to bear their own costs.                      (Officials — Time-limit for lodging complaints — Appli-
                                                                                cation manifestly inadmissible)
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                                (2000/C 316/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-43/00: Javier Martı́nez Lara and Milva Urbán Penón,
                                                                            officials of the Council of the European Union, residing in
                                                                            Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société
                                                                            de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against Council of
                            of 11 July 2000                                 the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and M. Dollfus) —
                                                                            application for the annulment, first, of the decisions of
in Case T-35/00 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the                       27 November 1998 of the selection board for internal Council
                    European Communities (1)                                competition B/260 not to include the applicants on the list of
                                                                            successful candidates and, secondly, the decision of the
                                                                            Secretary General of the Council of 28 July 1999 not to
     (Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)                      redefine the competition — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President J. Azizi and
                                                                            M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 31 July
                           (2000/C 316/46)                                  2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs.
In Case T-35/00 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St John                       (1) OJ 122 C 29.4.2000.
Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, Lon-
don, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
R. Lyal), application for annulment of the decision allegedly


title: Case T-185/14: Order of the General Court of 7 January 2015 — Freitas v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Directive 2013/55/EU — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Exclusion of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36 — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/36

      Order of the General Court of 7 January 2015 — Freitas v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-185/14) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Directive 2013/55/EU - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Exclusion of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36 - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 073/47)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: José Freitas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Tamás, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and M. Moore, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ L 354, p. 132).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the European Commission, the Ordem dos Notários (Portuguese notarial professional body) and of the Conseil national des barreaux (French National Bar Council) to intervene.

                  3.

                  Mr Freitas shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-271/14 and C-273/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — LFB Biomédicaments SA, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) (C-271/14), Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (C-273/14) v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 89/105/EEC — Article 6(3) and (5) — Removal of medicinal products from a list of pharmaceutical proprietary products covered in addition to fixed payments in respect of hospital treatment — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — LFB Biomédicaments SA, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) (C-271/14), Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (C-273/14) v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
   (Joined Cases C-271/14 and C-273/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 89/105/EEC - Article 6(3) and (5) - Removal of medicinal products from a list of pharmaceutical proprietary products covered in addition to fixed payments in respect of hospital treatment - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 198/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: LFB Biomédicaments SA, Association des déficitaires en Alpha 1 Antitrypsine (Association ADAAT Alpha 1-France) (C-271/14), Pierre Fabre Médicament SA (C-273/14)

      Defendants: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 6(3) and (5) is applicable to a decision which restricts the conditions of reimbursement or reduces the level of coverage of a medicinal product by excluding it from the list of proprietary medicinal products covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to services relating to hospital treatment covered by fixed payments in respect of periods of hospitalisation and hospital care.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-133/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 2 April 2008 — Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 2 April 2008 — Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV
   (Case C-133/08)
   (2008/C 158/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Intercontainer Interfrigo (ICF) SC

      Respondents: Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV
   Questions referred

               (a)

               Must Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (1) be construed as meaning that it relates only to voyage charter parties and that other forms of charter party fall outside the scope of that provision?

               (b)

               If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative, must Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention then be construed as meaning that, in so far as other forms of charter party also relate to the carriage of goods, the contract in question comes, so far as that carriage is concerned, within the scope of that provision and the applicable law is for the rest determined by Article 4(2) of the 1980 Convention?

               (c)

               If Question (b) is answered in the affirmative, which of the two legal bases indicated should be used as the basis for examining a contention that the legal claims based on the contract are time-barred?

               (d)

               If the predominant aspect of the contract relates to the carriage of goods, should the division referred to in Question (b) not be taken into account and must then the law applicable to all constituent parts of the contract be determined pursuant to Article 4(4) of the 1980 Convention?
               With regard to the ground set out in 3.6.(ii) above:

               (e)

               Must the exception in the second clause of Article 4(5) of the 1980 Convention be interpreted in such a way that the presumptions in Article 4(2), (3) and (4) of the 1980 Convention do not apply only if it is evident from the circumstances in their totality that the connecting criteria indicated therein do not have any genuine connecting value, or indeed if it is clear therefrom that there is a stronger connection with some other country?

      (1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security Commissioner, by order of 8 May 1998, in the cases of Regina Virginia Hepple, Anna Stec, Patrick Vincent Lunn, Oliver Kimber and Sybil Spencer against the Adjudication Officer (Case C-196/98)

text:
25.7.98                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 234/17
    they are of special importance for the successful                          conditions such as those imposed in Great Britain for
    deployment of the contractual employee, otherwise to                       Reduced Earnings Allowance from 1988Ð89 onwards
    the extent of one half if the service started not later                    are necessary to ensure coherence between schemes or
    than 30 April 1995, and if it started later to the extent                  otherwise fall within the permitted exclusion in
    of one half but only in so far as they do not exceed a                     Article 7?
    total of three years?
                                                                         3.    If those unequal age conditions are not within the
    If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative,
                                                                               permittd exclusion in Article 7, then does the doctrine
                                                                               of direct effect require the national court (in the
3. Are periods completed in institutions in Member                             absence of national legislation to comply with the
    States comparable to the said institutions to be taken                     Directive) to rectify the inequality by awarding an
    into account without temporal limitation?                                  additional payment to each individual concerned in
                                                                               any week when the payment prescribed under the
                                                                               occupational accident and disease scheme for him or
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                             her is lower than for a person of the other sex but in
                                                                               otherwise similar circumstances (the comparator'),
                                                                               without regard to:
                                                                               (a) any converse advantage in other weeks when, for
                                                                                the same individual, a higher payment is
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security                          prescribed than for the comparator; and/or
Commissioner, by order of 8 May 1998, in the cases of
Regina Virginia Hepple, Anna Stec, Patrick Vincent Lunn,
Oliver Kimber and Sybil Spencer against the Adjudication                       (b) the existence or exercise of sex-differentiated
                              Officer                                              options under the pension scheme to choose the
                                                                                pension starting age, the effect of which in
                        (Case C-196/98)
                                                                                conjunction with the unequal conditions under the
                          (98/C 234/33)                                            occupational accident and disease scheme may be
                                                                                to cause altered (and unequal) weekly payments
                                                                                under that scheme: in some weeks to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             advantage of the individual, in others to the
European Communities by an order of the Social Security                            comparator?
Commissioner of 8 May 1998, which was recevied at the
Court Registry on 22 May 1998, for a preliminary ruling
in the cases of Regina Virginia Hepple, Anna Stec, Patrick                     Or should some account be taken of such matters,
Vincent Lunn, Oliver Kimber and Sybil Spencer against                          and if so what are the principles to be applied in
the Adjudication Officer, on the following questions:                          relation to them in giving direct effect to Article 4?
1.   Does Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)                    (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                             progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
     permit a Member State to impose unequal age
                                                                             for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6 of
     conditions linked to the different pension ages for                     10.1.1979, p. 24).
     men and women under its statutory old-age pension
     scheme, on entitlement to a benefit having the
     characteristics of Reduced Earnings Allowance under
     a statutory occupational accident and disease scheme,
     so as to produce different weekly cash payments
     under that scheme for men and women in otherwise
     similar circumstances, in particular where the
     inequality:                                                         Action brought on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     (a) is not necessary for any financial reason connected                                    (Case C-197/98)
         with either scheme; and
                                                                                (98/C 234/34)
     (b) never having been imposed before, is imposed for
         the first time many years after the inception of the
         two schemes and also after 23 December 1984,                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
         the latest date for the Directive to be given full              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         effect under Article 8?                                         on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Mongin,
                                                                         both of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
2.   If the answer to Question I is Yes, what are the                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
     considerations that determine whether unequal age                   its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Micro Leader Business (M.L.B.) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-198/98)

text:
C 71/28               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
    discriminatory features regarding Spanish producers of         documents of the Centre for Information, Discussion and
    olive oil since a national guaranteed quantity has been        Exchange on Asylum (CIREA), which were requested
    fixed for Spain which falls far short of the yields of         pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    the last two years, and for Italy a national guaranteed        1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    quantity has been fixed which substantially exceeds its        documents requested were as follows:
    production in the last marketing year. Similarly, the
    regulation discriminates against olive oil as a
    Mediterranean product as compared with other                   (a) Common Foreign and Security Policy reports, analyses
    continental products covered by market organisations.              or evaluations for the years 1994 up to and including
    Finally, the reform at issue is not based on common                1998 which had been drawn up by the CIREA or in
    criteria or uniform calculation methods.                           connection with the CIREA, with regard to the
                                                                       situation in those third countries or regions from
                                                                       which a large number of asylum-seekers originate or
Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality. Attention is             in which they reside;
    drawn in particular to the abolition of the export
    regime, which the applicant describes as manifestly
    disproportionate.                                              (b) any reports of joint missions or reports supplied to the
                                                                       CIREA by one or more Member States, concerning
                                                                       missions to third countries by such Member State or
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the right to                  States;
property and infringement of the principle of freedom to
engage in an economic activity.
                                                                   (c) a list drawn up by the CIREA or in connection with
                                                                       the CIREA of those contact persons who are involved
(1) OJ L 210, 20.7.1998, p. 92.                                        with asylum cases in the Member States, together with
                                                                       any changes made to that list subsequently.
                                                                   The applicant submits that the refusal by the Council to
                                                                   grant access to the documents requested infringes
Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer
         against the Council of the European Union                 Ð Council Decision 93/731/EC, and more in particular
                                                                       articles 4(1) and 1(2) thereof,
                       (Case T-188/98)
                        (1999/C 71/53)
                                                                   Ð the obligation to state reasons and
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð the fundamental principle of Community law that
                                                                       European citizens should be granted the widest and
An action against the Council of the European Union was                fullest possible access to the EU Institutions'
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             documents.
Communities on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Me Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Micro Leader
                                                                   Business (M.L.B.) against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Ð annul the contested decision whereby the Council
                                                                                (Case T-198/98)
    refuses to grant access to the document requested by
    the applicant;                                                                        (1999/C 71/54)
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant                         (Language of the case: French)
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
    First Instance, including the costs of any intervening
    parties.                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                1998 by Micro Leader Business (M.L.B.), whose registered
                                                                   office is at Aulnay sous Bois (France), represented by
                                                                   Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar, with an
The applicant seeks the annulment of a refusal by the              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Council of the European Union to grant access to certain           Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         France, thus imposing significantly higher prices on the
                                                                    French market.
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 15 October 1998
     rejecting M.L.B.'s complaint against Microsoft France
     and Microsoft;
                                                                    Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Rumpstad ATM
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.                            B.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-201/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (1999/C 71/55)
The applicant, a wholesale distributor of computer                                 (Language of the case: French)
software and equipment, had purchased French-language
Microsoft software in Canada at a lower price than in
France and subsequently sold them in France. According              An action against the Commission of the European
to the applicant, Microsoft subsequently attempted to               Communities was brought before the Court of First
prevent the importation of that software from Canada.               Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
The applicant therefore submitted a complaint to the                1998 by Rumpstad ATM B.V., having its registered office
Commission,      claiming     that    Microsoft's     attitude      at Oud-Beijerland (Netherlands), represented by Marc van
constituted an infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the            der Woude and Thomas Chellingsworth, of the Brussels
EC Treaty.                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
That complaint was rejected by the contested decision.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the Commission, no infringement of                     Ð order the Commission to pay certain sums by reason
Article 85 of the EC Treaty was established on the ground               of fines wrongly imposed, interest on grounds of delay
that Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation enjoy                   and damages;
legal copyright protection which cannot be affected by
dealings outside the EC. Furthermore, no proof was
provided of any attempt by those two companies to                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
influence resale prices. Finally, there can be no finding of
any infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, in the
absence of evidence that the two companies were in a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
dominant position or acted abusively.
                                                                    In 1997, following an invitation to tender in respect of
The applicant submits that that decision is clearly                 Community food aid, the applicant concluded two
unfounded in the light of Community law, as well as the             agreements with the Commission for the supply of
facts and evidence in the case, and that it is vitiated by          shovels, machetes and buckets to Danane (Côte d'Ivoire)
insufficient reasoning, since the Commission did not                and Monrovia (Liberia). The two agreements stipulated
specify the manner in which the evidence produced to it             that the tools were to be delivered by 15 December 1997
did not demonstrate the existence of any infringement.              at the latet and provided for deductions to be made from
                                                                    payment in the event of late delivery.
The applicant considers that Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                    In the event, the Commission made considerable
prohibits any agreement or practice intended directly or
                                                                    deductions from the final payment on the ground that the
indirectly to fix purchase or selling prices or other
                                                                    supplies were subject to at times lengthy delays.
conditions of the transaction, or to seal off the market. In
its assertion, Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation
infringed that article by attempting to influence selling
                                                                    The applicant submits that the deductions (fines) provided
prices.
                                                                    for by the above agreements are contrary to the provisions
                                                                    of Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for
Furthermore, those two companies abused their dominant              the mobilisation in the Community of products to be
position on the market by prohibiting the importation into          supplied as Community food aid (1), as interpreted by the
France of Canadian products similar to those marketed in            case-law and that they must, therefore, be considered


title: Case C-348/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 17 June 2004, in the case of Boehringer Ingelheim KG and others against Swingward Ltd and another

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 17 June 2004, in the case of Boehringer Ingelheim KG and others against Swingward Ltd and another
   (Case C-348/04)
   (2004/C 273/22)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), dated 17 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 August 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Boehringer Ingelheim KG and others and Swingward Ltd and another on the following questions:
   Reboxed products

               1.

               Where a parallel importer markets in one Member State a pharmaceutical product imported from another Member State in its original internal packaging but with a new exterior carton printed in the language of the Member State of importation (a ‘reboxed’ product):

                           (a)

                           does the importer bear the burden of proving that the new packaging complies with each of the conditions set out in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova or does the trade mark proprietor bear the burden of proving that those conditions have not been complied with or does the burden of proof vary from condition to condition, and if so how?

                           (b)

                           does the first condition set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova as interpreted in Case C-379/97 Upjohn v Paranova and Case C-143/00 Boehringer v Swingward, namely that it must be shown that it is necessary to repackage the product in order that effective market access is not hindered, apply merely to the fact of reboxing (as held by the EFTA Court in Case E-3/02 Paranova Inc v Merck & Co Inc) or does it also apply to the precise manner and style of the reboxing carried out by the parallel importer, and if so how?

                           (c)

                           is the fourth condition set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova, namely that the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark or its owner, only infringed if the packaging is defective, of poor quality or untidy or does it extend to anything which damages the reputation of the trade mark?

                           (d)

                           if the answer to question l(c) is that the fourth condition is infringed by anything which damages the reputation of the trade mark and if either (i) the trade mark is not affixed to the new exterior carton (‘de-branding’) or (ii) the parallel importer applies either his own logo or a house-style or get-up or a get-up used for a number of different products to the new exterior carton (‘co-branding’) must such forms of box design be regarded as damaging to the reputation of the trade mark or is that a question of fact for the national court?

                           (e)

                           If the answer to question l(d) is that it is a question of fact, on whom does the burden of proof lie?

         Overstickered products

               2.

               Where a parallel importer markets in one Member State a pharmaceutical product imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging to which the parallel importer has applied an additional external label printed in the language of the Member State of importation (an ‘overstickered’ product):

                           (a)

                           do the five conditions set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova apply at all?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to question 2(a) is yes, does the importer bear the burden of proving that the overstickered packaging complies with each of the conditions set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova or does the trade mark proprietor bear the burden of proving that those conditions have not been complied with or does the burden of proof vary from condition to condition?

                           (c)

                           if the answer to question 2(a) is yes, does the first condition set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova as interpreted in Upjohn v Paranova and Boehringer v Swingward, namely that it must be shown that it is necessary to repackage the product in order that effective market access is not hindered, apply merely to the fact of overstickering or does it also apply to the precise manner and style of overstickering adopted by the parallel importer?

                           (d)

                           if the answer to question 2(a) is yes, is the fourth condition set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova, namely that the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark or its owner, only infringed if the packaging is defective, of poor quality or untidy or does it extend to anything which damages the reputation of the trade mark?

                           (e)

                           if the answer to question 2(a) is yes and the answer to question 2(d) is that the fourth condition is infringed by anything which damages the reputation of the trade mark, is it damaging to the reputation of a trade mark for this purpose if either (i) the additional label is positioned so as wholly or partially to obscure one of the proprietor's trade marks or (ii) the additional label fails to state that the trade mark in question is a trade mark owned by the proprietor or (iii) the name of the parallel importer is printed in capital letters?

         Notice

               3.

               Where a parallel importer has failed to give notice in respect of a repackaged product as required by the fifth condition of Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova, and accordingly has infringed the proprietor's trade mark(s) for that reason only:

                           (a)

                           is every subsequent act of importation of that product an infringement or does the importer only infringe until such time as the proprietor has become aware of the product and the applicable notice period has expired?

                           (b)

                           is the proprietor entitled to claim financial remedies (i.e. damages for infringement or the handing over of all profits made by infringement) by reason of the importer's acts of infringement on the same basis as if the goods had been spurious?

                           (c)

                           is the granting of financial remedies to the proprietor in respect of such acts of infringement by the importer subject to the principle of proportionality?

                           (d)

                           If not, upon what basis should such compensation be assessed given that the products in question were placed on the market within the EEA by the proprietor or with his consent?


title: Case T-91/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/28

         Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-91/08)
   (2008/C 142/50)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the procurement notice under reference aEuropeAid/126172/C/SER/CY for the conclusion of a contract entitled ‘Development and restructuring of telecommunications infrastructure — Training, Capacity building and Project management’, which was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 12 December 2007, and annul points 5 and 28 of the notice;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the notice is unlawful for the following reasons:

               —

               first, because, in issuing the notice, the Commission exceeded and/or infringed its legal basis, to be specific Council Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006 establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction (1);

               —

               second, because the notice is contrary to and/or incompatible with Article 299 EC, as amended by Article 19 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic (2) (‘the 2003 Act of Accession’) and Protocol No 10, on Cyprus, to the 2003 Act of Accession (3);

               —

               third, because the notice is contrary to or incompatible with both obligations flowing from rules of mandatory international law and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984);

               —

               fourth, because the notice is contrary to and/or incompatible with the principle of sincere cooperation between the institutions of the European Union and the Member States, as laid down under Article 10 EC; and

               —

               fifth, because the notice was not published in the Official Journal.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 65, p. 5.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33.

      (3)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 955.


title: Joined Cases T-391/03 and T-70/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2006 — Franchet and Byk v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Investigations of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Eurostat — Refusal of access — Inspections and investigations — Court proceedings — Rights of the defence)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2006 — Franchet and Byk v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-391/03 and T-70/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Investigations of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Eurostat - Refusal of access - Inspections and investigations - Court proceedings - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 212/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk (Luxembourg), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Maidani, J.-F. Pasquier and P. Aalto, agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and of the Commission refusing the applicants access to certain documents relating to an enquiry concerning Eurostat
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications for annulment of the decision of 18 August 2003 and the implicit decision to reject the applicants' applications of 21 and 29 October 2003 as inadmissible;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 1 October 2003 in so far as it refuses access to the communications from OLAF to the Commission other than that referred to in the press release of 19 May 2003, and the Commission decision of 19 December 2003 in so far as it refuses access to the annexes to the report of the internal audit service of 7 July 2003;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the actions as unfounded;

               4

               Orders the Commission to pay one third of the applicants' costs and the parties otherwise to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21, 14.1.2004.