title: Case C-69/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Paix, Luxembourg, by judgment of that court of 28 February 2002 in the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon Wampach; intervener: Etablissement d'assurances contre la vieillesse et l'invalidité

text:
18.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/17
       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
                                                                            Paix, Luxembourg, by judgment of that court of 28 Febru-
                                                                            ary 2002 in the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon
                       of 14 December 2001                                  Wampach; intervener: Etablissement d’assurances contre
                                                                                la vieillesse et l’invalidité
in Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European
          Communities v Euroalliages and Others (1)
                                                                                (Case C-69/02)
(Appeal — Order of the President of the Court of First
Instance given in proceedings for interim measures —
Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review — Urgency                                              (2002/C 118/27)
— Damage of a pecuniary nature - Uncertainty as to its
 subsequent reparation by means of an action for damages)
                           (2002/C 118/26)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Paix,
                                                                            Luxembourg, of 28 February 2002, which was received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 1 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon Wampach; intervener:
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Etablissement d’assurances contre la vieillesse et l’invalidité on
                                                                            the following questions:
                                                                            1.   Must Article 6(3) of the Brussels Convention be interpret-
In Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European Com-                          ed as meaning that an action for enforcement of a
munities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, assisted by A.P.                   judicial decision, necessarily involving in accordance with
Bentley, Barrister), supported by TNC Kazchrome, established                     procedural rules under domestic law the intervention of
at Almaty (Kazakhstan), and Alloy 2000 SA, established in                        a court of law, may be regarded as an original claim based
Luxembourg (lawyers: J.E. Flynn, Barrister, J. Magnin and                        on a contract or on facts? May an original claim based on
S. Mills, Solicitors), — appeal against the order of the President               the enforcement of a judgment declaring and fixing
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                    entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others v                       a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?
Commission, not yet published in European Court Reports,                         May an original claim seeking enforcement of an
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to                       entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
the proceedings being Euroalliages, established in Brussels                      a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?
(Belgium), Péchiney Electrométallurgie, established in Cour-
bevoie (France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön
(Sweden) and Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid (Spain)                 2.   Must the expression ‘arising from the same contract or
(lawyers: D. Voillemot and O. Prost, supported by Kingdom of                     facts on which the original claim was based’ in Article 6(3)
Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — the President of the Court                     of the Brussels Convention be considered to be more
made an order on 14 December 2001, the operative part of                         restrictive than the expression ‘related actions’ used in the
which is as follows:                                                             third paragraph of Article 22 of the Brussels Convention?
1.    The order of the President of the Court of First Instance of          3.   Where the court which is to hear and determine the
      1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others                   original claim has jurisdiction under Article 16(5) of the
      v Commission is set aside.                                                 Brussels Convention without that original claim requiring
                                                                                that court to adjudicate on the substance of the relation-
                                                                                ship between the parties to the dispute, does Article 6(3)
2.    The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance.                  of the Brussels Convention make it possible for a
                                                                                defendant to bring before that court a counter-claim
                                                                                concerning the legal substance, whereas if it had submit-
3.    Costs are reserved.                                                        ted that claim by way of an independent action, it would
                                                                                have fallen, under the terms of the Brussels Convention,
                                                                                within the jurisdiction of the courts of another Con-
                                                                                tracting State?
(1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case T-283/12: Action brought on 22 June 2012 — FIS’D v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/32

         Action brought on 22 June 2012 — FIS’D v Commission
   (Case T-283/12)
   2012/C 243/57
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: FIS’D — Formazione integrata superiore del design (Catanzaro, Italy) (represented by: S. Baratti and A. Sodano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               grant the requests for measures of organisation of procedure and/or for measures of inquiry;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the European Commission’s decision of 12 April 2012 (Ref. Ares (2012) 446225), which dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal lodged under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (‘the EACEA’) of 13 January 2012 (‘Termination of the Framework Partnership Agreement 2011-0181, Erasmus Mundus Masters Course in City Regeneration’) terminating early the Framework Partnership Agreement 2011-0181 concluded under the Erasmus Mundus programme 2009-2013.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment and failure to state adequate reasons:

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA clearly infringed (i) Sections II.A.1 and II.B.4 of the Administrative and Financial Handbook — which forms an integral part of the Specific Grant Agreement annexed to the Framework Partnership Agreement — and (ii) Article II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, when the EACEA assessed the modified plan for the reCity Erasmus Mundus Master Course submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 on behalf of a consortium different from the original one.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment:

                           —

                           In that connection, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that the EACEA’s decision agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for funding the Masters Course underway — on the basis of the new plan submitted by the Università degli Studi ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria on 21 December 2011 to be implemented by a consortium with a different membership from the original one — was vitiated by a manifest infringement of Articles I.3 and II.12.3 of the Framework Partnership Agreement, misuse of powers and, in particular, distortion, failure to fulfil an essential precondition, illogical and inconsistent reasoning and failure to state adequate reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of legal provisions in the form of a manifest error of assessment and failure to state adequate reasons

                           —

                           On that point, the applicant states that the Commission failed to find that, in terminating the Framework Partnership Agreement and agreeing to the extension of the Specific Grant Agreement for a plan with a different structure and content from that which had been used in the call for proposals, the EACEA infringed and misapplied Annex I to the Framework Partnership Agreement, misused its powers and, in particular, distorted the evidence, failed to fulfil an essential precondition, employed inconsistent reasoning, and failed to observe the general principle of sound administration and the related principles of good faith, transparency, impartiality and proportionality, and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case C-159/08 P: Order of the Court of 25 March 2009 — Isabella Scippacercola, Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Abuse of dominant position — Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport — Rejection of the complaint — No Community interest)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/15

         Order of the Court of 25 March 2009 — Isabella Scippacercola, Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-159/08 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Abuse of dominant position - Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport - Rejection of the complaint - No Community interest)
   2009/C 205/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Isabella Scippacercola, Ioannis Terezakis (represented by: B. Lombart, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2008 in Case T-306/05 Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities, dismissing an application seeking to annul the Commission Decision dated 2 May 2005 refusing to take action on the applicants’ complaint concerning an alleged abuse by Athens International Airport at Spata of its dominant position and its imposition of excessive charges on users

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mrs Scippacercola and Mr Terezakis shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


C 211/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/98 (1)                    ordered the removal from the register of Case T-180/99,
                                                                         Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 211/54)                                  ties.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-194/98: Scan Office Design S.A. v Commission of the
European Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-221/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 211/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-4/99 (1)                     By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                        (2000/C 211/55)                                  has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-221/99:
                                                                         Gitte Rassmussen v Council of the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
By order of 13 April 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-4/99,
OGT-Fruchthandelgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the
European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                       Removal from the register of Case T-21/00 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case        T-180/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 3 May 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
                        (2000/C 211/56)                                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-21/00 David
                                                                         Crabbe v Centre Européen pour le Développement de la
                   (Language of the case: French)                        Formation Professionnelle (CEDEFOP).
By order of 13 April 2000 the Court of First Instance of the
European Communites (single judge: R.M. Moura Ramos) has                 (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case T-313/05: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 — Microsoft Corporation v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/63

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 — Microsoft Corporation v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-313/05) (1)

   (2008/C 64/103)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case T-387/09: Action brought on 26 September 2009 — Applied Microengineering v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/30

         Action brought on 26 September 2009 — Applied Microengineering v Commission
   (Case T-387/09)
   2009/C 312/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Applied Microengineering Ltd (Didcot, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Walravens and J. De Wachter, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision dated 16 July 2009 ordering the recovery of an amount of EUR 258 560,61 plus interests;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision C(2009)5797 of 16 July 2009 relating to the recovery of certain amount plus interests due by the applicant in the framework of the projects IST-199-11823 FOND MST (‘Formation of a New Design House for MST’) and IST-2000-28229 ANAB (‘Assessment of a New Anodic Bonder’) funded under specific programme implementing research, technological development and demonstration activities in the user-friendly information society (1998-2002).
   The applicant puts forward seven pleas in support of its claims.
   First, it submits that the Commission infringed the essential procedural requirements by failing to conduct a full and proper audit procedure. The applicant states that the Commission failed to inform it of the start of the audit procedure, of the closing of it and it did not take into account the objections submitted by the applicant. The applicant further claims that the Commission violated its rights of defence and the principle of sound administration and the duty of care.
   Second, the applicant contends that the action of the Commission was time-barred at least for the payments made more that five years before the official start of the audit procedure.
   Third, the applicant argues that the Commission has committed manifest errors of assessment by applying the auditor’s erroneous interpretation of the rules regarding the eligible costs.
   Fourth, it claims that the Commission violated fundamental social rights and right to a fair remuneration by accepting hourly rates for workers below the minimum wage.
   Fifth, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the principle of legitimate expectations that the working method of average employment costs, as proposed by the applicant, was valid and the ‘target salaries’ would be considered an acceptable practice for the contractor.
   Sixth, it argues that the Commission disregarded its obligation to state reasons as it fully relied on the audit report without considering the applicant’s comments or request for reopening the audit procedure.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission breached the principle of sound administration and the duty of care by sending letters to the wrong address and not investigating the arguments put forward by the applicant.


title: Case F-30/14: Action brought on 28 March 2014  — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/56

         Action brought on 28 March 2014 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-30/14)
   2014/C 175/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to impose on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of downgrading.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision to downgrade the applicant for having failed to declare to the Commission that he was receiving, in addition to the family allowances for dependent children under Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials, a national allowance of the same nature;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-207/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — EyeSense v OHIM — Osypka Medical (ISENSE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ISENSE — Earlier national word mark EyeSense — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — EyeSense v OHIM — Osypka Medical (ISENSE)
   (Case T-207/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ISENSE - Earlier national word mark EyeSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 126/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: EyeSense AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Osypka Medical GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 (Case R 1098/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between EyeSense AG and Osypka Medical GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EyeSense AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case C-139/13: Action brought on 19 March 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/22

         Action brought on 19 March 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-139/13)
   2013/C 156/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Maidani and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that as it did not apply, by 28 June 2009, the time-limit laid down by Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (1), the technical specifications for issuing biometric passports containing fingerprints, in accordance with the provisions contained in Commission Decision C(2006) 2909 of 28 June 2006, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation,

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In its application, the Commission claims that the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted the measures necessary to ensure that biometric passports integrating fingerprints are issued within the time-limit laid down by Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1)


title: Case T-366/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2014  — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (Yoghurt-Gums) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Yoghurt-Gums — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 May 2014 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (Yoghurt-Gums)
   (Case T-366/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Yoghurt-Gums - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 202/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2012 (Case R 523/2012-4) concerning registration of the figurative sign Yoghurt-Gums as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.


title: Case C-579/08 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2010 — Messer Group GmbH v Air Products and Chemicals Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix — Earlier word marks FERROMAXX, INOMAXX and ALUMAXX — Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark — Relevant public — Degree of similarity — Limited distinctive character of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/12

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2010 — Messer Group GmbH v Air Products and Chemicals Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-579/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks Ferromix, Inomix and Alumix - Earlier word marks FERROMAXX, INOMAXX and ALUMAXX - Opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark - Relevant public - Degree of similarity - Limited distinctive character of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion)
   2010/C 100/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Messer Group GmbH (represented by: W. Graf v. Schwerin and J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (represented by: S. Heurung, Rechtsanwältin), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 October 2008 in Joined Cases T-305/06 to 307/06 Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM, by which the Court annulled the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 12 September 2006 dismissing the appeals brought by the proprietor of the Community word marks ‘FERROMAXX’, ‘INOMAXX’ and ‘ALUMAXX’ in respect of goods in Class 1 against the Cancellation Division’s decisions which had refused, in part, the opposition filed against the applications for registration of the word marks ‘FERROMIX’, ‘INOMIX’ and ‘ALUMIX’ in respect of goods in Classes 1 and 4

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The principal appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

               2.

               Messer Group GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

               3.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 07.03.2009.


title: Case C-201/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Oberste Gerichtshof, of 26 April 2001, in the Case of Maria Walcher against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark

text:
C 212/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by IPK München GmbH                             before the Court of First Instance, was concerned only
against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the                         with the question whether the Commission could estab-
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                           lish that the appellant was in a position to carry out the
European Communities in Case T-331/94 between IPK                             project satisfactorily, despite the unlawful interventions
München GmbH and the Commission of the European                               of DG XXIII officials. The Court of First Instance erred in
                         Communities                                          law by failing to recognise that.
                       (Case C-199/01 P)
                                                                        (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
                                                                        (2) [1999] ECR I-6795.
                        (2001/C 212/19)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between IPK
München GmbH and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by IPK München
GmbH, represented by H.J. Prieß, Rechtsanwalt.                          Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Oberste Ger-
                                                                        ichtshof, of 26 April 2001, in the Case of Maria Walcher
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen
                                                                                Steiermark
1.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 (1) in so far as it is
      assumed from paragraph 34 of that judgment onwards                                          (Case C-201/01)
      that points 6 to 12 of the European Commission’s letter
      of 30 November 1993, to which the Decision of the
      European Commission of 3 August 1994 refers, do not                                        (2001/C 212/20)
      belong to the grounds for the contested decision of
      3 August 1994;                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-             of 26 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on 15 May
      ings.                                                             2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria Walcher
                                                                        against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steier-
                                                                        mark on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        1.    Is it contrary to the objectives of Council Directive
                                                                              80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approxi-
—     Misidentification of the object in dispute: Even for the
                                                                              mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      Court, the scope of the dispute is bindingly defined by
                                                                              protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of
      the application. The application sought the annulment of
                                                                              their employer if, on account of the principles also applied
      the contested decision in its entirety without limitation.
                                                                              by the Austrian courts on loans made in substitution for
      The contested decision does not contain a limitation to
                                                                              share capital, a shareholder who has no controlling
      points 1 to 6 of the letter of 30 November 1993.
                                                                              influence on the company loses his entitlement to an
      However, the Court of First Instance erroneously proceed-
                                                                              insolvency guarantee payment where, in his capacity as
      ed on the basis that that letter could be divided into two
                                                                              an employee of the company, he does not, after the onset
      parts. Not even the Commission argued at any point that
                                                                              of creditunworthiness which was apparent to him, make
      points 6 to 12 of the letter did not form part of the
                                                                              any serious demand for payment of current wages in
      subject-matter of the dispute, and it became substantively
                                                                              arrears for more than 60 days and/or does not resign
      involved with the applicant’s argument concerning
                                                                              early on the ground that his wages are withheld?
      points 6 to 12. The misidentification of the subject-
      matter of the dispute by the Court of First Instance leads
                                                                        2.    Does this loss of entitlement extend to all unpaid claims
      to a reduction of the legal protection sought by the
                                                                              under the employment relationship or only to those
      applicant;
                                                                              arisen after the fictitious point in time at which an
—     Infringement of the duty to state reasons (Article 253                  employee who was not a shareholder would, on the
      EC);                                                                    ground that his wages were withheld, have handed in his
                                                                              notice of resignation from the employment relationship?
—     Infringement of the binding authority of the judgment of
      the Court of Justice in Case C-433/97 P (2), referring the
      matter back to the Court of First Instance: In its judgment,      (1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.
      the Court of Justice, like the First Chamber of the Court
      of First Instance before it, did not in any way limit the
      subject-matter of the dispute. The reference back by the
      Court of Justice, and thus the subsequent proceedings


title: Case C-106/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)) — Lidl & Companhia v Fazenda Pública (Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Taxable amount — Tax payable on the manufacture, assembly, admission or import of vehicles)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/7

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)) — Lidl & Companhia v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-106/10) (1)

   (Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Taxable amount - Tax payable on the manufacture, assembly, admission or import of vehicles)
   2011/C 298/10
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl & Companhia

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Intervener: Ministério Público

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78, read in conjunction with point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79, of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Inclusion in the taxable amount for VAT of the amount of the Portuguese ‘imposto sobre veículos’ — Tax on new vehicles payable on the manufacture, assembly, admission or import of vehicles — Tax payable once only, by the operator or vendor of the vehicle, on its introduction onto the Portuguese market

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A tax such as vehicle tax (imposto sobre veículos), at issue in the main proceedings, the chargeable event for which is linked directly to the supply of a vehicle falling within the ambit of that tax and which is paid by the supplier of that vehicle, is covered by the definition of ‘taxes, duties, levies and charges’ for the purpose of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and must, pursuant to that provision, be included in the taxable amount for value added tax on the supply of that vehicle.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-118/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2014  — Peggy Kieck v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2014 — Peggy Kieck v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-118/14)
   2014/C 184/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peggy Kieck

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired?

               3.

               Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-638/13: Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/58

         Order of the General Court of 28 August 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Kimbo (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)
   (Case T-638/13) (1)

   (2015/C 381/70)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


9.9.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 259/31
       Removal from the register of Case T-85/95 (1)                              Removal from the register of Case T-176/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/55)                                                            (2000/C 259/58)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the First Chamber
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/95:                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
DIR International Film S.r.l. and Others v Commission of the               has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-176/99
European Communities.                                                      Q. v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ No C 137 of 3.6.95.                                                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
        Removal from the register of Case T-8/98 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-343/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/56)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/59)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber,
Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                      By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
register of Case T-8/98 Siderca S.A.I.C. v Commission of the               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                      has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-343/99
                                                                           Hans-Werner Schmidt v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
       Removal from the register of Case T-80/98 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/57)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-108/00 R
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/60)
By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                    (Language of the case: French)
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-80/98 CIT
Belgique S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                           By order of 3 July 2000 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-108/00
                                                                           R Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.


title: Case T-247/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Slovakia v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States — Act of Accession of 2003 — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary law — Decision 2007/361/EC)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Slovakia v Commission
   (Case T-247/07) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States - Act of Accession of 2003 - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)
   2012/C 138/18
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented initially by J. Čorba and subsequently by B. Ricziová, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Tokár, agents)

      Interveners in support of the Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, and finally by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, agents) and Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 123, p. 14), in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-202/00: Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacurta against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/19
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
115 others against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     —     annul the express decision of the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities of 19 July 2000 refusing to apply
                          (Case T-201/00)                                        Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations in relation
                                                                                to him;
                          (2000/C 285/34)                                  —     rule that the applicant is to be re-assigned to a third
                                                                                country by no later than 1 September 2000, in accord-
                                                                                ance with Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        pay all the costs of the proceedings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and
115 others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                           The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the
                                                                           decision rejecting the request submitted by him on 6 June
—     annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the                 2000, by which he applied to be assigned to a third country
      drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips for the months               pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of
      from September to December 1999;                                     officials. That request was rejected on the ground that the
                                                                           applicant did not fall within the category of staff covered by
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                the provision in question.
                                                                           In support of his application, he maintains that the decision in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           issue:
The applicants, who are seconded to the Office for Veterinary              —     infringes Articles 2 and 3 of Annex X to the Staff
and Plant-Health Inspection and Control in Dublin, are con-                      Regulations;
testing their pay slips for the months from September to
December 1999, maintaining that these were drawn up on the                 —     infringes Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
basis of the weighting for Ireland, which has been fixed                         principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and
without taking account of the cost of living in Dublin. They                     the principle of the hierarchy of norms;
claim that, by applying that illegal weighting for the purposes
of calculating their remuneration, the Commission has                      —     infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
infringed Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regulations of                        expectations;
officials, as well as the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
career prospects and freedom of movement for workers.                      —     is vitiated by misuse of powers and abuse of process; and
                                                                           —     infringes Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacurta
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A. against
                          (Case T-202/00)                                                 the Council of the European Union
                          (2000/C 285/35)                                                           (Case T-205/00)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                  (2000/C 285/36)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacur-
ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, of the              An action against the Council of the European Union was
Luxembourg Bar.                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-384/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Heinrich Bredemeier v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (Common agricultural policy — Milk quota scheme — Grant of a special reference quantity — Beneficiaries — Producers who take over a holding by similar means to inheritance after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking entered into by their predecessors — Interpretation of Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91)

text:
C 169/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
(OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, the           composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
under the EC Treaty, the Court (Second Chamber), composed                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen                     on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 The words ‘producers ... who have received the holding through ...
on 14 May 2002, in which it:                                                similar means’ in the second indent of the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Article 3a(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
1.    Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period,      1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
      all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/       to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
      82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident             milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
      hazards involving dangerous substances, the Federal Republic          No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that
      of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            they refer to a producer who is the spouse of the designated heir and
      directive;                                                            to whom the holding has been let on conditions more favourable than
                                                                            market conditions, following the expiry of the non-marketing
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              undertaking entered into by the lessor (the deviser) under Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products
                                                                            and for the conversion of dairy herds, provided that it follows from
                                                                            all the elements of fact and of law which characterise the letting that:
                                                                            —     the main intention of the arrangement is that the holding
                                                                                should continue to be exploited for the benefit of the designated
                                                                                heir and not that the market value of the holding should be
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            realised by the deviser, and that
                        (Second Chamber)                                    —     the terms of the legal relations between the parties to the
                                                                                contract are such that the advantage which the deviser intends
                            16 May 2002                                           to confer on his heir is guaranteed in the long term, even if the
                                                                                spouses should separate or the marriage be dissolved.
in Case C-384/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Heinrich                     (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
    Bredemeier v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (1)
(Common agricultural policy — Milk quota scheme — Grant
of a special reference quantity — Beneficiaries — Producers
who take over a holding by similar means to inheritance
after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking entered
into by their predecessors — Interpretation of Article 3a of
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (EEC) No 1639/91)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (2002/C 169/16)
                                                                                30 May 2002
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            in Case C-441/00: Commission of the European Communi-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                          Ireland (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
In Case C-384/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Ger-                                       pean high-speed rail system)
many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Heinrich Bredemeier and Landwirts-
chaftskammer Hannover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe                                              (2002/C 169/17)
and Irmtraut Bredemeier, on the interpretation of Article 3a(1)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                                          (Language of the case: English)
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991                         In Case C-441/00, Commission of the European Communities
(OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35), the Court (Second Chamber),                         (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and


title: Case C-54/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil d'Etat by decision of 6 January 1999 in the case of Association Eglise de Scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v. French Republic

text:
C 100/16               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
Court Registry on 17 February 1999, for preliminary                 Do the provisions of Article 73d of the Treaty of 25 March
rulings in the cases of Office National des Pensions v.             1957 establishing the European Community, as amended,
Gioconda Camarotto and Office National des Pensions v.              according to which the prohibition of all restrictions on
Giuseppina Vignone on the following questions:                      movements of capital between Member States is without
                                                                    prejudice to the right of Member States to take measures
                                                                    which are justified on grounds of public policy or public
                                                                    security', allow a Member State, in derogation from the
1. Does Article 95a of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    system of full freedom or the declaration system
     No 1408/71 (1) as amended by Council Regulation
                                                                    applicable to foreign investments within its territory, to
     (EEC) No 1248/92, refer solely to recipients of
                                                                    maintain a system of prior authorisation for such
     pensions where the decision granting the pension was
                                                                    investments as may adversely affect public order, public
     final at the time of the entry into force of the
                                                                    health or public security, it being specified that this
     amendment, or does it relate also to recipients of
                                                                    authorisation is deemed to have been obtained one month
     pensions who before the entry into force of the
                                                                    after receipt of the investment declaration submitted to the
     amendments introduced by the new regulation had
                                                                    Minister unless the latter, within the same period, declares
     already brought proceedings before a national court
                                                                    that the transaction in question has been deferred?
     seeking to obtain precisely the right to the pension by
     contesting the application of the national rules against
     overlapping, a final decision in those proceedings not
     yet having been given at the time of the entry into
     force of the new provisions?
2. If Article 95a applies to all recipients without
     distinction, must the application referred to in               Action brought on 18 February 1999 by the Commission
     Article 95a(4) be made to the competent social                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
     security institution in accordance with the formalities                                (Case C-55/99)
     required by national legislation for the bringing of an
     application for review, or may it be made to the court                                (1999/C 100/31)
     before which the dispute has been brought in
     accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, and
     in the latter case must the period of two years referred
                                                                    An action against the French Republic was brought before
     to in Article 95a(5) and (6) likewise be complied with?
                                                                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    18 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
                                                                    Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
    the application of social security schemes to employed          Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
    persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their       national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
    families moving within the Community, (OJ, English Special      acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    Edition 1971, p 416).                                           Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð declare that, by establishing, in Decree No 96Ð351 of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                        19 April 1996 (1), a procedure for the registration of
d'Etat by decision of 6 January 1999 in the case of
                                                                        medical reagents, and by imposing in that decree the
Association Eglise de Scientologie de Paris' and
                                                                        obligation to state the registration number on the
Scientology International Reserves Trust v. French
                                                                        external packaging and the notice accompanying each
                            Republic
                                                                        reagent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                         (Case C-54/99)                                 obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;
                        (1999/C 100/30)
                                                                    Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 6 January 1999 by               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
the French Conseil d'Etat, which was received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Association Eglise de Scientologie de        1. In the Commission's view, the application to all
Paris' and Scientology International Reserves Trust v.                  reagents covered by Decree No 96Ð351 of 19 April
French Republic on the following question:                              1996, without distinction as to the level of the


title: Case T-418/12: Action brought on 21 September 2012 — Beninca v Commission

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/36

         Action brought on 21 September 2012 — Beninca v Commission
   (Case T-418/12)
   2012/C 366/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jürgen Beninca (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission’s decision of 26 July 2012, implicitly refusing access to a document produced in the framework of merger proceedings (Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to access to a certain document within the time limit foreseen by Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). Pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Regulation, this constitutes an implicit negative and unreasoned decision and thereby constitutes a violation of relevant provisions on access to documents.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that none of the arguments raised by the Commission, in its preliminary assessment, justify denying the applicant access to the requested document.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43)


22.1.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 20/29
       Removal from the register of Case T-201/98 (1)                    the register of Case T-98/99, UPS Europe NV/SA v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
                        (2000/C 20/64)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-201/98, Rumpstad ATM B.V. v Commission of the
European Communities.                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-107/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                        (2000/C 20/67)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Second
       Removal from the register of Case T-76/99 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                        (2000/C 20/65)                                   Case T-107/99, Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo v Council of
                                                                         the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
By order of 18 November 1999, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-76/99: Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-117/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/68)
       Removal from the register of Case T-98/99 (1)                                        (Language of the case: French)
                        (2000/C 20/66)                                   By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Fifth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                  (Language of the case: English)                        of Case T-117/99, Natalia Martinez Paramo and Others v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.
By order of 29 October 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Case T-359/09: Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Jurašinović v Council

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/80

         Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Jurašinović v Council
   (Case T-359/09)
   2009/C 267/142
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: A. Beguin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the express decision of 17 June 2009 and the subsequent implied decision by which the applicant was refused access to the following documents:

                           —

                           reports of observers of the European Union in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995;

                           —

                           the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log Reports’;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union — Secretariat-General to grant electronic access to the documents sought;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 exclusive of tax or EUR 2 392 inclusive of tax in procedural indemnity with interest, at the rate determined by the ECB in respect of the day the application was lodged.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the express decision of 17 June 2009 and the subsequent implied decision of the Council refusing him access to the reports of the European Union observers in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995 and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log Reports’.
   The applicant raises two pleas in law in support of his action:

               —

               disclosure would not undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) in so far as:

                           —

                           no specific legal protection may apply to the documents sought; and

                           —

                           even supposing that specific protection may apply, half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought;

                           —

                           in addition, unless classed in a protective category, the documents in question do not fall within the category of sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001.

               —

               disclosure would not undermine the protection of court proceedings and legal advice in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in so far as:

                           —

                           that exception concerns the protection of court proceedings of the European Union and of the Member States, whereas, in the present case, the Council justifies its refusal to grant access on the basis of court proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia;

                           —

                           the documents sought have already been sent to the parties in the Gotovina case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which justifies also giving the applicant access to them;

                           —

                           it is not the task of the Council to ensure that proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia run smoothly; and

                           —

                           there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents sought.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-368/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331/13
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                         Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and S. Terstal,
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             acting as Agents.
      Commission, within the time limit laid down, the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply fully with Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio
      equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment
      and the mutual recognition of their conformity, the                1.    Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/289751 of
      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under             11 July 2001 relating to Aid Measure No C 56/2001 on
      the EC Treaty,                                                           the granting of State aid in the area of maritime transport
                                                                               to the activities of Netherlands tug boats in internal waters
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                            and seaports within the EU (by which the Commission
                                                                               informs the Netherlands of its decision to initiate the
                                                                               procedure set out in Article 88(2) EC);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member               Pleas in law and main arguments
State to which they are addressed.
                                                                         —     Decision contrary to Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC)
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member                  No 659/1999: the Commission does not have the power
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or                to classify, as a new aid measure, a measure that has
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out                already been approved. If the Commission, in the exercise
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions               of its duties relating to the continuous monitoring of
of the Community.                                                              existing aid measures, were able, whether of its own
                                                                               motion or by reason of a complaint, to classify such an
                                                                               aid measure immediately and with retroactive effect as a
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt                 new aid measure, that would be contrary to the system
measures to comply with the abovementioned Directive.                          laid down in Article 88 EC and Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 659/1999.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic                    The Commission has in no way decided that the appli-
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-                cation of ‘tax incentives’ and ‘taxation according to
ation of the Directive at issue into Greek law.                                tonnage’ to the activities of tug boats in ports and internal
                                                                               waters within the European Union is not covered by its
                                                                               decision approving the aid measure, with the result that
(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10.                                                  the Commission cannot now decide to consider such
                                                                               application as constituting a new aid measure. The
                                                                               Commission’s reasoning that there is now a case of new
                                                                               aid, on the ground that the Netherlands Government
                                                                               formally agreed to the Commission proposal to adopt
                                                                               appropriate measures, within the period specified for that
                                                                               purpose, which expired on 5 January 1999, in order to
                                                                               bring the existing aid measures into line with the
                                                                               Guidelines, which might suggest that the Netherlands aid
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Kingdom of                          measures, as approved, had been brought into line with
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European                         the Guidelines and were compatible with them, is without
                           Communities                                         basis in Article 88 EC or Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
                         (Case C-368/01)                                       The Commission’s reasoning in this regard is also entirely
                                                                               illogical. Assuming that the Netherlands Government had
                                                                               intended to notify the Commission that the Netherlands
                         (2001/C 331/21)                                       aid measures in question had been brought into line with
                                                                               the Guidelines and were thus in accordance with the
                                                                               conditions laid down therein, that must naturally also
                                                                               have been done on the basis of the Netherlands Govern-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      ment’s knowledge of the interpretation of the Guidelines
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   at that time.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.11.2001
     In so far as the Commission has sought to suggest that             Pleas in law and main arguments
     the Netherlands Government had failed to make clear at
     an earlier stage that the activities of tug boats were also
     intended to be covered by the two measures, which might            Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
     have constituted a reason enabling the Commission to               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     classify that application of the existing measures as ‘new         each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
     aid’, the Netherlands Government strenuously denies that           required to observe the time limits laid down in directives for
     assertion;                                                         their transposition. Those time limits expired on 30 Avril
                                                                        2000 and 30 June 2000 respectively without the Italian
—    Decision contrary to the principle of the protection of            Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
     legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty;      in order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
                                                                        Commission’s application.
—    Decision contrary to the principle that reasons must
     always be given.                                                   (1) OJ 1999 L 91, p. 29.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1999 L 139, p. 29.
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Com-                         Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                 mission of the European Communities against the United
                            Republic                                                                   Kingdom
                        (Case C-370/01)                                                           (Case C-373/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/23)
                        (2001/C 331/22)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Septem-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Septem-              ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                 represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The Applicant requests that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare that by failing to adopt and publish before
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   1 January 2000 the provisions necessary to comply with
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   Commission Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with:                      adapting to technical progress Commission Directive
                                                                              91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing
     (a)    Commission Directive 1999/21/EC (1) of 25 March                   certain dangerous substances (1), or in any event by failing
            1999 on dietary foods for special medical purposes;               to inform the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom
            and                                                               has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
     (b) Commission Directive 1999/50/EC (2) of 25 May                  —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
            1999 amending Directive 91/321/EEC on infant
            formulae and follow-on formulae;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
     Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under those directives;
                                                                        Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
                                                                        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
—    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 1997 in Case C-45/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (VAT - Exemption within the country - Supplies of goods which were used wholly for an exempted activity or which were excluded from the right of deduction)

text:
No C 252/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
or recovery operations falling within the scope of the                      obligations under Article 13 B (c) of the Sixth Council
abovementioned Community rules. The fact that a                             Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
substance is classified as a re-usable residue without its                  harmonization of the laws of the Member States
characteristics or purpose being defined is irrelevant in                   relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
that regard. The same applies to the grinding of a waste                    added tax: uniform basis of assessment;
substance.
                                                                       2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994,
     OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994.
     OJ No C 229, 2 . 9 . 1995 .                                       H OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                          of 25 June 1997                                                         of 25 June 1997
        in Case C-45/95 : Commission of the European                   in Case C- 114/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
               Communities v. Italian Republic ( 1 )                   the Tribunal de Police, Luxembourg): Criminal
                                                                           proceedings against Rene Kieffer and Romain Thill (')
(VAT — Exemption within the country — Supplies of
goods which were used wholly for an exempted activity or               (Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions —
       which were excluded from the right of deduction)                Measures having equivalent effect — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 3330/91 — Statistics on the trading of goods —
                            ( 97/C 252/14 )
                                                                       Detailed declaration of all intra-Community trading —
                                                                          Compatibility with Articles 30 and 34 of the EC Treaty)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                                    ( 97/C 252/15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-45/95 : Commission of the European                                      published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agent: Enrico Traversa ) v. Italian Republic
( Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli,
                                                                       In Case C-l 14/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Avvocato dello Stato ) — Application for a declaration
that, by enacting and maintaining in force legislation                 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Police, Luxembourg
which does not exempt from value added tax supplies of                 for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before
goods used wholly for an exempted activity or in any                   that court against Rene Kieffer and Romain Thill — on
event excluded from the right of deduction, the Italian                the interpretation and validity of Council Regulation
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    ( EEC ) No 3330/91 of 7 November 1991 on the statistics
Article 13 B (c ) of the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/             relating to the trading of goods between Member States
EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws                  ( OJ No L 316, 16 . 11 . 1991 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                      Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ),
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                     President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and P. J. G.
assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court           Kapteyn, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von
 ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President               Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
 of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),            25 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
 Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 1997,              Examination of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 of
 in which it :                                                          7 November 1991 on the statistics relating to the trading
                                                                       of goods between Member States has not disclosed any
                                                                       factor of such a kind as to cast doubt on its validity.
 1 . declares that, by enacting and maintaining in force
      legislation which does not exempt from value added                (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
      tax supplies of goods used wholly for an exempted
      activity or otherwise excluded from the right of
      deduction, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its


title: Case T-132/08: Action brought on 2 April 2008 — ENRI Electronics v OHIM (MaxiBridge)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/31

         Action brought on 2 April 2008 — ENRI Electronics v OHIM (MaxiBridge)
   (Case T-132/08)
   (2008/C 142/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ENRI Electronics GmbH (Adelberg, Germany) (represented by N. Breitenbach, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 in Case R 1530/2006-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MaxiBridge’ for goods in Classes 9 and 17 (Application No 4 899 647).

      Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) inasmuch as the mark in respect of which application is sought does not constitute an indication which needs to be kept freely available.

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


title: Case T-153/12: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP International (SKYDRIVE) (Community trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/55

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP International (SKYDRIVE)
   (Case T-153/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 344/99
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Colbourn, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Baxter and D. Rose, Solicitors, and P. Roberts, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (case R 2293/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sky IP International Ltd and Microsoft Corp.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.