title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-475/98: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral "open skies" agreement with the United States of America — Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 323/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           secondary law, or by failing to take all legally possible
                                                                                steps to that end, failed, in relation to the agreements
                        of 5 November 2002                                        concluded before the EC Treaty entered into force, to
                                                                                comply with its obligations under Article 234 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 307 EC) in the
in Case C-475/98: Commission of the European Communi-                             version resulting from Article 6 of the Act concerning
                   ties v Republic of Austria ( 1)                                the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria,
                                                                                the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral                       Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995
‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America —                        L 1, p. 1),
Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport
market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/                       the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (President of the Sixth
92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the                         Chamber), acting for the President, R. Schintgen (President of
Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                         Chamber), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty                      and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
                        (now Article 10 EC))                                Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
                                                                            General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-
                           (2002/C 323/07)                                  Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on 5 Novem-
                                                                            ber 2002, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by entering into or maintaining in force, despite
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            the renegotiation of the air transport agreement between the
                    in the European Court Reports)                                Republic of Austria and the United States of America of
                                                                                16 March 1989, international commitments with the United
                                                                                States of America
In Case C-475/98, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. Sack and F. Benyon) v Republic of Austria (Agent:                     —     concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers desig-
C. Stix-Hackl), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands                                 nated by the United States of America on intra-Com-
(Agents: M. A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel): Application for                              munity routes,
—     as its principal claim, a declaration that, by having                       —     concerning computerised reservation systems offered for
      individually negotiated, initialled and concluded, in 1995,                       use or used in Austrian territory, and
      an ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of
      America in the field of air transport, the Republic of
                                                                                —     recognising the United States of America as having the
      Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
                                                                                right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases
      Treaty, and in particular Articles 5 (now Article 10 EC)
                                                                                where air carriers designated by the Republic of Austria
      and 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) thereof,
      and also under secondary law adopted pursuant to                                  are not owned by the latter or by Austrian nationals,
      that Treaty, and in particular Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/                    Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and Article 52
      92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers                     of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and
      to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8),                        under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992                         1992 on fares and rates for air services and Council Regulation
      on fares and rates for air services (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 15),                 (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989                         computerised reservation systems, as amended by Council
      on a code of conduct for computerised reservation                           Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993;
      systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended by Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993 (OJ
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      1993 L 278, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/
      93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the
      allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14,              3.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;
      p. 1); and,
                                                                            4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
—     in the alternative, in relation to part of its principal claim,
      a declaration that, in so far as the 1995 agreement
      cannot be regarded as having radically amended and
      thus replaced the agreements previously concluded, the                (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
      Republic of Austria has, by not rescinding those pro-
      visions of the said agreements which are incompatible
      with the EC Treaty, especially Article 52 thereof, and with


title: Case C-428/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — DHL Express (Italy) Srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition policy — Article 101 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — International freight forwarding sector — National competition authorities — Legal status of instruments of the European Competition Network — Model Leniency Programme of that network — Application for immunity submitted to the Commission — Summary application for immunity submitted to national competition authorities — Relationship between those two applications)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — DHL Express (Italy) Srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-428/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition policy - Article 101 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - International freight forwarding sector - National competition authorities - Legal status of instruments of the European Competition Network - Model Leniency Programme of that network - Application for immunity submitted to the Commission - Summary application for immunity submitted to national competition authorities - Relationship between those two applications))
   (2016/C 098/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: DHL Express (Italy) Srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA

      Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Interveners: Schenker Italiana SpA, Agility Logistics Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               EU law, in particular Article 101 TFEU and Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 [TFEU] and 102 [TFEU], must be interpreted as meaning that the instruments adopted in the context of the European Competition Network, in particular the Model Leniency Programme of that network, are not binding on national competition authorities.

               2.

               EU law, in particular Article 101 TFEU and Regulation No 1/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that there is no legal link between the application for immunity which an undertaking submits or is preparing to submit to the European Commission and the summary application submitted to a national competition authority in respect of the same cartel, requiring that authority to assess the summary application in the light of the application for immunity. Whether or not the summary application accurately reflects the content of the application for immunity submitted to the Commission is, in that respect, irrelevant.
               Where the summary application submitted to a national competition authority has a more limited material scope than the application for immunity submitted to the Commission, that national authority is not required to contact the Commission or the undertaking itself, in order to establish whether that undertaking has found specific examples of unlawful conduct in the sector allegedly covered by the application for immunity, but which is not covered by the summary application.

               3.

               EU law, in particular Article 101 TFEU and Regulation No 1/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding a national competition authority from accepting, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a summary application for immunity from an undertaking which had not submitted an application for full immunity to the Commission, but rather an application for reduction of the fine.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


20150731019616712015/C 270/121002014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150611111221Case C-100/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission Appeal — Arbitration clause — Cocoon et Dicoems contracts, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Irregularities — Ineligible expenditure — Termination of contracts
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1110120150611EN0012111122Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2015 — Association médicale européenne (EMA) v European Commission
   (Case C-100/14 P) (
         1
      )
   ‛Appeal — Arbitration clause — Cocoon et Dicoems contracts, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Irregularities — Ineligible expenditure — Termination of contracts’2015/C 270/12Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Appellant: Association médicale européenne (EMA) (represented by: A. Franchi, L. Picciano and G. Gangemi, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as Agents, and D. Gullo, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the appeal;

            2.

            Orders the Association médicale européenne (EMA) to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Appeal brought on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93, T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-277/95 P)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/ 15
     action against the Council of the European Union and               the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
     the joined party, the Kingdom of Spain, for the                     1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     annulment of Article 115 of Council Regulation ( EC )              14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     No 40/94, and declare admissible the applicant's action            Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
     against the Council of the European Union and the                  — Export refund department — on the following
     Kingdom of Spain for the annulment of the said                     questions :
     Article 115 ,
                                                                        1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
— order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal .                         tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
                                                                             Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
The Court of First Instance wrongly held that the applicant                  content and consequently on the degree of its
                                                                             esterification ?
was affected solely in her objective capacity as a trade-mark
agent, in the same way as any other trade-mark agent                    2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the
finding himself, actually or potentially, in a comparable                    maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
situation as regards the use of the Dutch language . The                     esterified potato starch exported between April 1987
Court of First Instance overlooked, however, the fact that,                  and August 1987 so as not to preclude its classification
where a category of persons falls to be considered, it must                  within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of the Common
necessarily be a valid category. In the present case, the Court              Customs Tariff 1987 ?
of First Instance has created a category which is incapable of
existing, since, according to Regulation No 1 of the Council
determining the languages to be used by the European
Community, any person established in an EC country may                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
use his own language .                                                  by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig
                                                                        Wiinsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
                                                                                Export refund department
                                                                                Case C-2 76/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig                                     ( 95/C 268/33 )
                                                                                \
Wunsche & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Export                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                       refund department                                European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
                          Case C-2 74/95                                the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
                          ( 95/C 268/31 )                               1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 — Export refund department — on the following
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June                questions :
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
Ludwig Wunsche & Co v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                           tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
— Export refund department — on the following                                Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
questions :
                                                                             the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
                                                                             content and consequently on the degree of its
1 , does the tariff classification of esterified potato starch               esterification ?
     within subheading 3505 10 50 of the combined
     nomenclature depend on its acetyl content and                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: how high could the
     consequently on the degree of its esterification ?                      maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
                                                                             esterified potato starch exported between March 1987
2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the                 and December 1987 so as not to preclude its
     maximum acetyl content have been in the case of                         classification within tariff subheading 1 1.08 A IV of the
     esterified potato starch exported in February 1988 so as                Common Customs Tariff 1987 ?
     not to preclude its tariff classification within subheading
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Appeal brought on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and
                                                                        Volker Lenz against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof               Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig            European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,
Wunsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —                           T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker
                   Export refund department                             Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case C-275 /95 )                                                    ( Case C-277/95 P )
                          ( 95/C 268/32 )                                                        ( 95/C 268/34 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An appeal against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/ 16             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker                     the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and Volker
Lenz, represented by Jiirgen Schlacht, Rechtsanwalt, of                 — set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the
Schliiterstrafêe 22 III, D-20146 Hamburg.                                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                            8 June 1995 in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,
The appellants claim that the Court should :                                supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities,
— set aside the order of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
      First Instance of 14 June 1995 in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,         — consequently, annul Articles 1 ( c ) and 2 of Commission
      T-464/93 and T-470/93 , disqualify Judge K. Lenaerts                  Decision 92/483/EEC of 24 June 1992 concerning aid
      from sitting as the President of the Fourth Chamber of                provided by the Brussels Regional Authorities ( Belgium )
      the Court of First Instance and, in addition, decide Cases            in favour of the activities of Siemens SA in the
      T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 in accordance with                   data-processing and telecommunications sectors,
      the forms of order sought in each of those cases (*).
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
                                                                            proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of
Pleas in law and arguments adduced in support:                              First Instance in Case T-459/93 .
— The contested order of the Court of First Instance was
      made in breach of the Rules of Procedure . Under                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Article 16 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of
      Justice of the European Communities, the Court of                 Errors of law, in particular the fact that the Court of First
                                                                        Instance examined whether the contested aid constituted
      Justice should have decided to disqualify Judge Lenaerts
      and to exclude him from taking part in the contested              investment aid within the meaning applied to that term in
      order, by reason of his extensive involvement in the              Community law, instead of verifiying, as it should have
      earlier proceedings concerning the same matter.                   done, whether such aid fell within the substantive scope of
                                                                        the Belgian Law of 1959 ' introducing and coordinating
— The contested order wrongly dismissed the actions on                  measures to encourage economic expansion and the
      the ground that they were time-barred. Contrary to the            creation of new industries', as construed in Belgian law and
      assumption made in the judgment, no administrative                as approved by the Commission .
      procedure took place pursuant to Articles 90 or 9 1 of the
      Staff Regulations in relation to the applicants' claims .
      Such an administrative procedure was not required,
      since the appellants, who are not officials, are asserting
      claims in tort which, although connected with the social          Action brought on 18 August 1995 by the Commission of
      welfare of Community officials, are not subject to the              the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      rules of procedure governing claims by officials.
                                                                                ( Case C-280/95 )
i 1 ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 , p . 11 ;                                                        ( 95/C 268/36 )
      OJ No C 54 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 4 ;
      OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 , p . 10,                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         18 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu and Anders C.
                                                                        Jessen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Appeal brought on 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA against                   for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de
the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the Second                      la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
           Commission of the European Communities                        — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty, by failing to adopt the
                          ( Case C-278/95 P )                                measures necessary to comply with Commission
                             ( 95/C 268/35 )                                 Decision 93/496/EEC of 9 June 1993 concerning State
                                                                             aid procedure C 32/92 (ex NN 67/92 ) — Italy C ) (tax
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by                  credit for professional road hauliers ) and in particular by
 the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    failing to recover, with effect from the tax year 1992, the
 European Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens                       aid unlawfully introduced by the Ministerial Decree of
 SA, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the                   28 January 1992 in favour of professional road hauliers
 Commission of the European Communities was brought                          in Italy in the form of a tax credit on income tax or on
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  municipal tax or on VAT,
 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA, represented by Michel
 Waelbroeck, Jules Stuyck and Olivier Speltdoorn, of the                 — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2001 in Case T-143/99 Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assistance — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)

text:
15.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/7
4.    Orders the applicant to pay the Commission the sum of                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      EUR 49 844, plus interest at an annual rate of 7 % as from
      31 January 1999.                                                                              of 7 June 2001
5.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of       in Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG v
      the costs incurred by the Commission.                                       Commission of the European Communities (1)
6.    Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs.                (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid incompatible
                                                                          with the common market — Time-limit for investigation —
                                                                          Act of Accession — Declaration No 31 — Statement of
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.99.
                                                                                reasons)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-187/99, Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG, established
                                                                          in Vienna (Austria), represented by W. Barfuß and
                                                                          H. Wollmann, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
                          of 14 June 2001                                 bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agents: M. Erhart and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
                                                                          annulment of Commission Decision 1999/342/EC of 30 Sep-
in Case T-143/99 Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the
                                                                          tember 1998 concerning aid which Austria plans to grant to
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          Agrana Stärke- GmbH to build and convert starch production
                                                                          facilities (OJ 1999 L 131, p. 61) — the Court of First Instance
(EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assistance —                           (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh,
          Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)                      President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and
                                                                          N. Forwood, Judges; G. Hertzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                          trar, has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
                          (2001/C 259/08)
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                Commission.
In Case T-143/99, Hortiplant SAT, established in Amposta
(Spain), represented by C. Fernández Vicién and Iglesias Roa,            (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.
lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Visaggio and J. Guerra Fernández) — application
for the annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March
1999 to cancel the financial assistance granted to Hortiplant
SAT by Commission Decision C(92) 3125 of 3 December
1992 concerning the granting of aid from the EAGGF
Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
No 4256/88 in the context of a project entitled ‘Initiative in
the form of a pilot project to demonstrate a new and                                               of 14 June 2001
highly efficient method of producing seedlings, as applied to
ornamental and woodland species’ — the Court of First                     in Case T-230/99: Hans McAuley v Council of the Euro-
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, Presi-                                          pean Union (1)
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                        (Officials — Appointment by way of promotion — Annul-
                                                                          ment — Examination of the comparative merits — Manifest
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                 error of assessment)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the                                  (2001/C 259/10)
      Commission, including those in the proceedings for interim
      relief.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                          In Case T-230/99: Hans McAuley, an official of the Council
                                                                          of the European Union, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                          (Belgium), represented by J-N. Louis, G-F. Parmentier and


C 204/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/98 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-23/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/78)                                                         (1999/C 204/82)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 26 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-11/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling       the register of Case C-23/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Abdulreza Kazemi              from the Tribunale di Genova): Palmira Ieropoli, Giovanni
Nava v Confcommercio.                                                  Sgambellone v Banca Carige SpA.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-72/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/83)
                        (1999/C 204/79)
                                                                       By order of 27 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               the register of Case C-72/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the register of Case C-342/98: Commission of the European              from the Landesvergabeamt Tirol): Firma Ortner GmbH v
Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                               Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-346/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/80)                                                         (1999/C 204/84)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-346/98: Commission of the European              the register of Case C-25/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Communities v Ireland.                                                 from the Tribunale di Genova): Fiduciaria Internazionale Srl v
                                                                       Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-419/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-26/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/81)                                                         (1999/C 204/85)
By order of 23 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-419/98 (reference for a preliminary             the register of Case C-26/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): Marcella             ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Giolfo e C. Srl v
Moretti v Baoco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA.                                 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                              (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.


title: Case T-322/06: Action brought on 21 November 2006 — Espinosa Labella and Others v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/72

         Action brought on 21 November 2006 — Espinosa Labella and Others v Commission
   (Case T-322/06)
   (2006/C 326/149)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Manuel Espinosa Labella and Others (Almería, Spain) (represented by: J. Rovira, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declaration that the inclusion of SIC ES 166 0014 ‘Artos de El Ejido’ in the decision adopted by the Commission concerning the Mediterranean region is null and void, and an order ‘Artos de El Ejido’ to be removed from the list of ‘sites of Community importance’ contained in that decision;

               —

               alternatively, a declaration that the inclusion of the farms situated in the municipality of El Ejido north of Santa María del Águila in the SIC is null and void or, to the same effect, a declaration that the inclusion of the farms situated between the greenhouses to the north of Santa María del Águila in the SIC ‘Artos de El Ejido’ is null and void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (1), in so far as it declares ES61 0014 ‘Artos de El Ejido’ a site of Community importance, either in its entirety or, alternatively, in so far as it includes in that list specific farms belonging to the applicants.
   In support of their claims the applicants submit:

               —

               that the defendant has not carried out a proper assessment of the Kingdom of Spain's proposal to include ‘Artos de El Ejido’ in the list of sites of Community importance in the Mediterranean biogeographical area, contrary to the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EC. The applicants state, in that respect, that as soon as they became aware of that proposal, they complained on a number of occasions to the staff at the Commission Directorate General for the Environment, claiming:

               —

               extensive anthropisation of the land concerned making it unsuitable as an appropriate habitat for wild flora and fauna;

               —

               failure to define the SIC which it purports to designate or, in the alternative, failure to define the SIC appropriately by means of the boundaries of private properties and not the natural characteristics of the land;

               —

               lack of any scientific basis for the protection of designated species on farms situated in areas of industrial agriculture or intensive agriculture in greenhouses.

         As regards the SIC at issue, the affected area was not correctly selected as the national authorities have not provided the full scientific data required. However, although the Spanish authorities have failed to provide such data, the Commission was obliged to do so. In that regard, the applicants submit that the reasoning on which a decision is based, which designates an area as deserving protection, must be accompanied by a substantial amount of scientific evidence which must satisfy the criteria laid down in Annex III of the directive.

               —

               By accepting the fact that there was no public hearing in the proceedings to include ‘Artos de El Ejido’ in the list of SICs and by not replying to the applicants' letters, the defendant has infringed basic procedural rules thereby depriving the applicants of their rights.

      (1)  OJ L 259, of 21.09.2006, p. 1.


title: Case C-494/99: Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 63/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
— Infringement of the freedom of estab-                                Pleas in law and main arguments
    lishment.
                                                                       The Member States are required by the binding character of
                                                                       the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
    In view of the fact that in Germany only a company whose
                                                                       third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
    employees carry out construction work accounting for
                                                                       to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
    more than 50 % of the company’s total working time can
                                                                       national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
    be treated as being a construction company, it makes little
                                                                       purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
    sense for construction companies from other Member
                                                                       the Commission. That period expired on 21 November 1996
    States to establish separate subsidiaries in Germany
                                                                       without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
    employing exclusively commercial and technical staff (for
                                                                       Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
    instance, in order to secure or develop projects), since
                                                                       into national law.
    these are not in a position, should orders for work
    come in, to carry out the work through deployment of
    construction workers, from their other (foreign) subsidia-         (1) OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 14.
    ries or from the parent company. This also constitutes
    discriminatory treatment, inasmuch as German subsidiari-
    es of German construction undertakings continue to be
    treated as construction companies even if they do not
    themselves satisfy the 50 % rule.
                                                                       Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-495/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/30)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission                   Court of Justice on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                the European Communities, represented by Peter Oliver, Legal
                                lic                                    Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (Case C-494/99)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 63/29)
                                                                       1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the              Council Directive 96/93/EC on the certification of animals
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December                 and animal products (1), the French Republic has failed to
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         comply with its obligations under that directive and under
represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, and Frank               the Treaty;
Benyon, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la             2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The mandatory nature of the provisions of Articles 249 and
                                                                       10 EC is such as to oblige Member States to which directives
— declare that, by not adopting and communicating to the               are addressed to adopt the measures necessary in order to
    Commission within the time-limit laid down in the laws,            transpose those directives into their national legal order within
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary to             the time-limit prescribed therein. The time-limit fixed by
    comply fully with Council Directive 94/56/EC (1) of                Article 9 of Directive 96/93/EC expired on 1 January 1998
    21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental prin-                but France has not adopted the necessary measures.
    ciples governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents
    and incidents, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the Treaty and that directive;                   (1) JO L 13 of 16 January 1997, p. 18.
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-46/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/14

         Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE)
   (Case T-46/14)
   2014/C 78/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sales & Solutions GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wattline GmbH (Ruderting, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2013 in Case R 1668/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and the application for the Community trade mark is rejected;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wattline GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘WATTLINE’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8 908 345

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word and figurative mark and the Community word and figurative mark ‘Watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the contested decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95


title: Case C-264/10: Order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Criminal proceedings v Gheorghe Kita

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Criminal proceedings v Gheorghe Kita
   (Case C-264/10) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/74
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 1999 in Case T-220/97: H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Milk - Reference quantity - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice)

text:
18.9.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 265/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
                        of 9 March 1999                                   Xavier Lewis), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                          and Northern Ireland, (Agents: Michelle Ewing, Kenneth Parker
                                                                          and Andrew Macnab) — application for annulment of the
in Case T-212/97: Agnès Hubert v Commission of the                        Commission decision of 16 May 1997 refusing to take action
                  European Communities (1)                                to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 June
                                                                          1996 in Case C-127/94 R v MAFF ex parte Ecroyd [1996]
(Officials — Staff report — Principles of sound adminis-                  ECR I-2731 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
tration and legal certainty — Inadequate statement of                     R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
reasons — General Provisions for implementing Article 43                  J. Vanhamme, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a
of the Staff Regulations — Guidelines for drawing up staff                judgment on 20 May 1999, in which it:
reports — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of
               powers — Action for annulment)                             1. Annuls the Commission decision of 16 May 1997 refusing to
                                                                               take action to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
                        (1999/C 265/19)                                        of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 R v Maff ex parte Ecroyd
                                                                               [1996] ECR I-2731.
                   (Language of the case: French)                         2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
                                                                               incurred by the applicant.
In Case T-212/97: Agnès Hubert, an official of the Commission
                                                                          3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                               Ireland to bear its own costs.
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21
Rue de Nassau v Commission of the European Communities                    (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
(Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Christine Berardis-Kayser and Denis
Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of a Commission
decision definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
the period between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 1995 — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) composed of J.D. Cooke,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
9 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The action is dismissed.                                                                           of 4 May 1999
2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                                   in Case T-242/97: Z v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          (Disciplinary procedure — Penalty of downgrading —
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                                Action for annulment)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-242/97: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
                                                                          residing in Brussels represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the
                         of 20 May 1999                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
in Case T-220/97: H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd v Com-                        European Parliament (Agent: Hans Kruck) — application for
          mission of the European Communities (1)                         annulment of the decision of the General Secretariat of the
                                                                          European Parliament of 28 October 1996 imposing on the
                                                                          applicant the disciplinary measure of downgrading — the
(Milk — Reference quantity — Compliance with a judgment                   Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vester-
                     of the Court of Justice)                             dorf, President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                        (1999/C 265/20)                                   on 4 May 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. Dismisses the application.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-220/97: H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd, whose registered
office is at Brinsop House, Credenhill (United Kingdom),                  (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
represented by William Neville, Solicitor, Peter Duffy QC,
Philippa Watson and Paul Stanley, Barristers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss


title: Case F-99/08: Action brought on 12 December 2008 — Di Prospero v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/54

         Action brought on 12 December 2008 — Di Prospero v Commission
   (Case F-99/08)
   (2009/C 69/119)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Rita Di Prospero (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriguez and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of EPSO's decision not to accept the applicant's application for competition EPSO/AD/117/08
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to have allowed the applicant to submit an application for competition EPSO/AD/117/08;

               —

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


title: Case C-303/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for Lazio) by judgment of that court of 31 May and 6 July 2000 in the case of M. Balestreri and L. Maura against the Regione Lombardia

text:
C 302/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
Does the standard fee applicable under Council Directive                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985, in conjunction with Council              di Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) (Supreme Court of
Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of 15 June 1988, for the inspection                Cassation, Third Civil Chamber) by interlocutory order
of fresh meat intended for the domestic market in accordance               of that court of 18 April 2000 in the case of the Prefect of
with Council Directive 64/433/EEC (3) of 26 June 1964, as                  the Province of Cuneo against Silvano Carbone as sole
amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (4) of 11 December 1989,                   director of the private limited company ‘Expo Casa Manta
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (5) of                                                Srl’
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out a
bacteriological inspection required in an individual case?
                                                                                (Case C-296/2000)
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                                          (2000/C 302/31)
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.
( 4) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 5) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
                                                                           Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) of 18 April 2000, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 1 August 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of the Province of Cuneo against Silvano
                                                                           Carbone as sole director of the private limited company ‘Expo
                                                                           Casa Manta Srl’ on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                  ‘Does a provision of national law which requires prior approval
hof, by judgment of that court of 27 April 2000, in the                    of cordless telephones coming from third countries for the
case of Davidoff & Company and Zino Davidoff SA v                          purposes of their being placed on the market only and not
                             GOFKID Ltd                                    also of their importation fall within the scope of Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 519/94 (1) of 7 March 1994 and Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) of 22 December 1994 on
                           (Case C-292/00)                                 common rules for imports from certain third countries?’
                           (2000/C 302/30)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 67 of 10 March 1994, p. 89.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 349 of 31 December 1994, p. 53.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Davidoff & Company SA and Zino Davidoff SA v
GOFKID Ltd on the following questions:
1.    Are the provisions of Article 4(4)(a) and Article 5(2) of
      First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                    Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Adminis-
      relating to trade marks (1) to be interpreted (and where             trative Court for Lazio) by judgment of that court of
      appropriate so applied) as also entitling the Member                 31 May and 6 July 2000 in the case of M. Balestreri and
      States to retain rules protecting well-known marks in                          L. Maura against the Regione Lombardia
      cases where the later mark is used or to be used for goods
      or services identical with or similar to those in respect of                                 (Case C-303/00)
      which the earlier mark is registered?
2.    Are the grounds mentioned in Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of                                    (2000/C 302/32)
      the Trade Mark Directive (use which without due cause
      takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark) exhaus-         European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      tive in regulating when it is permissible for provisions             strativo Regionale per il Lazio of 31 May and 6 July 2000,
      protecting well-known marks to be retained under                     received at the Court Registry on 8 August 2000, for a
      national law, or may those articles be supplemented by               preliminary ruling in the case of M. Balestreri and L. Maura
      national rules protecting well-known marks against later             against the Regione Lombardia on the following questions:
      signs which are used or to be used in respect of identical
      or similar goods or services?
                                                                           (1) Do the provisions contained in Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                          1992 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 534/92 of 9 March 1993 (2) permit derogation
                                                                                from the time-limits for the allocation of quotas, and thus
                                                                                for adjustments and levies, where it is found, when
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/17
      ascertaining whether or not the contracts for the lease or           No 2100/94, using the variety in question or has at least
      sale of those quotas are lawful, that those originally               — otherwise — used that variety on his holding?
      allocated to the transferor were inaccurately determined,
      for reasons for which the authorities are not responsible?
                                                                           (1) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) Are the abovementioned provisions of Community law
      valid, in the light of Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the
      Treaty, in so far as they do not provide, in the case
      of subsequent verification of the individual reference
      quantities leased or sold, for the possibility of retrospec-
      tive allocation of the quota, correcting the quantities
      incorrectly stated in the notices on account of facts for
      which the authorities are not responsible?                           Appeal brought on 17 August 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
                                                                           ered on 8 June 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                                                                           of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                           Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 between, on the
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                          one hand, Camar srl, applicant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12. The number of this Regulation has         and T-117/98, and Tico srl, applicant in Case T-117/98,
    been corrected, since it was incorrectly cited in the request for a    the applicant in Case T-79/96 being supported by the
    preliminary ruling.                                                    Italian Republic, and, on the other hand, the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, defendant in Cases
                                                                           T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council of the
                                                                           European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                                                                           by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                                T-260/97
                                                                                (Case C-312/00 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/34)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2000 by
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-                    the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of 1 August 2000 in the                   European Communities in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
case of Christian Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs                    and T-117/98 between, on the one hand, Camar srl, applicant
                               GmbH                                        in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl,
                                                                           applicant in Case T-117/98, the applicant in Case T-79/96
                                                                           being supported by the Italian Republic, and, on the other
                         (Case C-305/00)                                   hand, the Commission of the European Communities, defend-
                                                                           ant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council
                                                                           of the European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                         (2000/C 302/33)                                   by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                           T-260/97, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 August 2000 by the Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     mission of the European Communities, represented by Chris-
European Communities by order of 1 August 2000 by the                      topher Van der Hauwaert and Luca Visaggio, of its Legal
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main,               Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 2000,                Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Christian Schulin v                office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH on the following ques-                    Centre, Kirchberg.
tion:
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     set aside the contested judgment;
Are the provisions of Article 14(3), sixth indent, of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994(1), in conjunc-
tion with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC)                          and consequently:
No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 (2), to be construed as meaning
that the owner of a plant variety which is protected under                 —     declare the application in Case T-79/96 unfounded;
Regulation No 2100/94 can require any farmer to provide the
information specified in the above provisions irrespective of              —     declare the application in Case T-260/97 unfounded,
whether there is anything to suggest that the farmer has carried                 including the claim for compensation for damage suf-
out any act, within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation                   fered;


title: Case C-63/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Limoges (France) lodged on 6 February 2017 — Banque Solfea SA v Jean-François Veitl
   (Case C-63/17)
   (2017/C 144/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance de Limoges

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banque Solfea SA

      Defendant: Jean-François Veitl

      Question referred

   Where the annual percentage rate of credit is 6,75772 %, does the rule provided for in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998 (1) and 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008, (2) according to which, in the French version, ‘Le résultat du calcul est exprimé avec une exactitude d’au moins une décimale. Si le chiffre de la décimale suivante est supérieur ou égal à 5, le chiffre de la première décimale sera augmenté de 1’ [translated in literal terms as ‘[t]he result of the calculation shall be expressed correct to at least one decimal place; [i]f the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at that particular decimal place shall be increased by one’] allow a stated APR of 6,75 % to be considered correct?

      (1)  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

      (2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 June 1999 in Case C-319/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings against Antoine Kortas (Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95(4) to (9) EC) - Directive 94/36/EC on colours for use in foodstuffs - Notification of national legislation derogating therefrom - No confirmation from the Commission - Effect)

text:
C 204/18                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            17.7.1999
3. In Member States with a federal structure, reparation for damage        2. The direct effect of a directive, where the deadline for its
     caused to individuals by national measures taken in breach of              transposition into national law has expired, is not affected by the
     Community law need not necessarily be provided by the federal              notification made by a Member State pursuant to Article
     State in order for the obligations of the Member State concerned           100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 95(4)
     under Community law to be fulfilled.                                       to (9) EC) seeking confirmation of provisions of national law
                                                                                derogating from the directive, even where the Commission fails
                                                                                to respond to that notification.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 1 June 1999                                                              of 3 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-33/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-319/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt): Colim NV v
the Landskrona Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings against                                      Bigg’s Continent Noord NV (1)
                          Antoine Kortas (1)
                                                                           (Approximation of laws — Procedure for the provision of
(Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                   information in the field of technical standards and regu-
Article 95(4) to (9) EC) — Directive 94/36/EC on colours                   lations — Directive 83/189/EEC — Labelling and presen-
for use in foodstuffs — Notification of national legislation                  tation of products — Consumer protection — Language)
derogating therefrom — No confirmation from the Com-
                          mission — Effect)                                                            (1999/C 204/35)
                           (1999/C 204/34)                                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-33/97, Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                           (ex Article 177) by the Rechtbank van Koophandel (Commer-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     cial Court), Hasselt, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    in the European Court Reports)                         proceedings pending before that court between Colim NV and
                                                                           Bigg’s Continent Noord NV — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                           Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
In Case C-319/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                 procedure for the provision of information in the field of
EC (ex Article 177) by the Landskrona Tingsrätt, Sweden, for               technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before            amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988
that court against Antoine Kortas — on the interpretation of               (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), and of the principles applicable to
Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                    product labelling — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Article 95(4) to (9) EC) and European Parliament and Council               J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in                   Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
foodstuffs (OJ 1994 L 237, p. 13) — the Court, composed of                 L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
and P. Jann (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Manci-            3 June 1999, in which it held:
ni, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm
and M. Wathelet; Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
                                                                           1. The obligation to give mandatory labelling particulars, instruc-
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                tions for use and guarantee certificates for products at least in the
judgment on 1 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                language or languages of the area in which those products are
                                                                                placed on the market does not constitute a ‘technical regulation’
1. A directive can have direct effect even though its legal basis is            within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28
     Article 100a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article               March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
     95 EC) and Article 100a(4) allows Member States to request a               information in the field of technical standards and regulations,
     derogation from the implementation of that directive.                      as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of March 1988.


title: Case F-111/10: Action brought on 29 October 2010 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/65

         Action brought on 29 October 2010 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
   (Case F-111/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/129
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s note in which she applied to the defendant for the protection provided under Article 22a (3) of the Staff Regulations, and damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 1 October 2009 and, if required, of the IDOC letter/decision of 3 November 2009 and of the letter from the Director-General of the Human Resources Directorate General of the European Commission of 22 March 2010;

               —

               annulment, as necessary, of the decision dated 3 August 2010 and notified on the following day, 4 August 2010, rejecting her complaint;

         Consequently,

               —

               That the measures sought in her request of 1 October 2009 be taken by the appointing authority;

               —

               that, in particular, she be afforded the protection provided in Article 22(a) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               that the allegations made against the applicant be withdrawn from the notes of 6 May and 30 September 2008 and that the damage suffered by the applicant be compensated by the award of damages;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2001 in Case T-330/99 Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Community Customs Code — Remission of import duties — Special situation — Fraud in connection with an external Community transit operation)

text:
C 259/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.9.2001
V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,             regard — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and               composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
M. Bauer) — application for annulment of the decisions of the             Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June
Secretary General of the Council of 15 December 1998                      2001, in which it:
rejecting the applicant’s applications for the posts of Head of
the English Language Division of Language Service of the                  1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for an order requiring the
‘Translation and Production of Documents’ Directorate of the                    Commission to adopt certain measures and the claim for other
‘Administration — Protocol’ Directorate-General and Language                    or further relief;
Adviser in that division and appointing B and K to those two
posts respectively — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                  2.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R.M. Moura                        1 in compensation for the non-material damage;
Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                                    3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.    annulled the decisions of the Council of 15 December 1998           4.    Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs,
      appointing K to the post of language adviser in the English               half of the applicant’s costs.
      Language Division and rejecting the applicant’s application for
      that post.                                                          (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.00.
2.    dismissed the application as inadmissible.
3.    ordered the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 50 % of
      those incurred by the applicant.
4.    ordered the applicant to bear 50 % of his own costs.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 June 2001
(1) OJ No C 6 of 8.1.00.
                                                                          in Case T-330/99 Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Community Customs Code — Remission of import duties
                                                                          — Special situation — Fraud in connection with an external
                                                                                Community transit operation)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2001/C 259/12)
                          of 20 June 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-243/99 Marie-Laurence Buisson v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                            In Case T-330/99, Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH, a
                                                                          company in judicial liquidation, established in Flensburg
(Officials — Open competition — Refusal to admit to the                   (Germany), represented by A. Suhr, lawyer, against Com-
written tests — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting                   mission of the European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer
a candidate — Time-limit — Legitimate expectation —                       and M. Núñez-Müller) — application for annulment of the
                           Compensation)                                  Commission decision of 22 July 1999 (reference: REM 22/98)
                                                                          which stated that the remission of import duties sought was
                                                                          not justified — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                          (2001/C 259/11)                                 composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 22 July 1999 (reference:
                                                                                REM 22/98) which found that the remission of import duties
In Case T-243/99 Marie-Laurence Buisson, residing in Ankara
                                                                                sought was not justified;
(Turkey), represented by I. Forrester QC, E. Wright, Barrister,
and F.M. Murray, Barrister, with an address for service in                2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay nine
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-                         tenths of the costs incurred by the applicant, which shall bear
ties (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment of the                     one tenth of its own costs.
decision of 13 July 1999 rejecting the applicant’s request for
reconsideration of the decision of the selection board not to
admit her to the written tests forming part of the selection              (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.00.
procedure in Open Competition COM/A/10/98, and for
compensation for the non-material damage incurred in that


title: Case T-174/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2009 — Volkswagen v OHIM (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TDI — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2009 — Volkswagen v OHIM
   (Case T-174/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TDI - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 69/84)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Risthaus, H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and R. Jepsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 1479/2005-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign TDI as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Volkswagen AG to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


23.1.1999             EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 20/29
      Removal from the register of Case C-296/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-377/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/48)                                                   (1999/C 20/51)
By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          By order of 9 October 1998, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-296/97 (Reference for a              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für           from the register of Case C-377/97: Commission of the
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Ulrich Gloger v. Bergamt          European Communities v. Greek Republic.
Kamen, intervener: Vertreter des Öffentlichen Interesses
beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
Westfalen (Representative of the Public Interest before the
Higher Administrative Court for the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
                                                                                C-240/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/52)
      Removal from the register of Case C-369/97 ( )1
                       (1999/C 20/49)                            By order of 14 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of        removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          C-240/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
from the register of Case C-369/97 (Reference for a              Ireland, interveners: Federal Republic of Germany,
preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutz-       Kingdom of Denmark and Council of the European Union
verband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth           v. Commission of the European Communities, intervener:
Co Gesellschaft mbH.                                             European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-382/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/50)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/53)
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-382/97 (Reference for a              By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof):             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Gerhard Köbler v. Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, For-          removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (Reference for
schung und Kunst.                                                a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
                                                                 Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: Case T-16/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Banco Mare Nostrum v Commission

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/18

         Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Banco Mare Nostrum v Commission
   (Case T-16/14)
   2014/C 61/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Mare Nostrum SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.