title: Case C-444/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 November 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd

text:
C 45/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
1.   Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on          (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     the establishment of a European Works Council or a
     procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
     munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes              Pleas in law and main arguments
     of informing and consulting employees, in particular
     Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
     to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking          of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
     is resident outside the the Community are obliged to              obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
     provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central          into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
     management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)             expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
     and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the         prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
     average total number of employees and their distribution          1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
     across the Member States, the establishments of the               the field covered by the directive.
     undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
     the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
     controlled by it?                                                 (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
2.   If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     affirmative:
     Does the obligation to provide information also
     encompass the names and addresses of the employee
     representation which is to participate, on behalf of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
     the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings              of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
     controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating      Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
     body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in          vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
     the establishment of a European Works Council?                    of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
                                                                       Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                     Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
                                                                                Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-444/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/18)
Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                         lic of Germany
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
                                                                       trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
                        (Case C-443/00)                                Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
                         (2001/C 45/17)                                Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
                                                                       of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by              the following questions:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal        Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,                 ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the                  Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre                  Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and Commission Decision
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
                                                                       separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
                                                                       ingots, sheets or coils of steel:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order             1.    Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
     to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European                       be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
     Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on                     when they have been:
     the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
     of personal data and on the free movement of such                       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or
     data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
     comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and                     b.     used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
     under Article 32 of that directive;                                           or coils of steel?
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 45/9
2.     Have those materials been ‘recycled’ for the purposes of           Pleas in law and main arguments
       European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (4)
       on packaging and packaging waste when they have been:
                                                                          —     Infringement of essential procedural requirements in
       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or                       the creation of the contested regulation: The plaintiff
                                                                                complains in particular that there has been no collegiate
                                                                                decision of the Commission in relation to the amendment
       b.    used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets               of the Commission proposal, which took the form of
             or coils of steel?                                                 adopting the content of a compromise suggestion of the
                                                                                Council. A collegiate decision of the content claimed by
                                                                                the Commission representative at the meeting of the
                                                                                Committee of Permanent Representatives, namely to
( 1) of 15 July 1975 (OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).                             empower the relevant Commissioner to amend the
( 2) of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32).                             original Commission proposal accordingly, should a
( 3) of 24 May 1996 (OJ L 135, 06.06.1996, p. 32).                              formulation commanding a qualified majority be found
( 4) of 20 December 1994 (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).                         in the Council, is, the plaintiff maintains, not sufficient.
                                                                                That would not ensure that the College of the Com-
                                                                                mission was informed about the essential elements of the
                                                                                amended proposal, let alone ensure that it deliberated
                                                                                over them as a body. If, therefore, a lawful (amended)
                                                                                proposal of the Commission had not at any time been
                                                                                submitted as the basis for the Council decision finally
                                                                                taken, the Council had no authority to decide upon the
                                                                                matter by qualified majority.
Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of
     Austria against the Council of the European Union
                                                                          —     (In the alternative) Infringement of the Treaty by
                                                                                amending the Commission proposal after it had been
                           (Case C-445/00)                                      submitted to the Council: The Republic of Austria submits
                                                                                that the Commission does not have the authority under
                                                                                the procedure pursuant to Article 16 of Protocol No 9 to
                            (2001/C 45/19)                                      the 1994 Act of Accession to alter a proposal once it has
                                                                                been submitted to the Council, if the Council does not
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         pronounce against the proposal by qualified majority.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of Austria,
represented by Harald Dossi, acting as Agent, with an address             —     (In the alternative) Insufficient statement of reasons,
for service in Luxembourg.                                                      infringement of Article 253 EC.
The Republic of Austria claims that the Court should:                     —     (In the alternative) Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or
                                                                                Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession:
1.     Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 Sep-
       tember 2000 (1) amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9
                                                                                —     Article 1 of the contested regulation has as its
       to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC)
                                                                                subject-matter a formal alteration to Annex 4 to
       No 3298/94 (2) with regard to the system of ecopoints
                                                                                Protocol No 9, which is anchored in primary law;
       for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria;
                                                                                there is no authority in primary law for such an
                                                                                alteration.
2.     Order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                                Even if, in the words it actually uses, Article 2(1) of
In the alternative, the Republic of Austria claims that the Court                     the contested regulation, whereby the reduction in
should:                                                                               the number of ecopoints is generally spread over
                                                                                several years, refers only to the amendment of
1.     Annul Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (4) of Council                            Article 6(2)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3298/94, and
                                                                                thereby gives the impression that only another
       Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 September 2000
       amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of                           measure of secondary law is being altered, that
       Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94 with regard                           alteration also amounts to an alteration of rules of
                                                                                primary law. That is because the ruling in Protocol
       to the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles
       transiting through Austria;                                                    No 9 unequivocally and unmistakably provides for
                                                                                the full reduction of the ecopoints to be curtailed
                                                                                for the year following the exceeding of the 108 %
2.     Order the Council to pay the costs.                                            limit.


title: Case T-593/13: Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Siemag Tecberg Group v OHIM (Winder Controls)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/12

         Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Siemag Tecberg Group v OHIM (Winder Controls)
   (Case T-593/13)
   2014/C 31/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Siemag Tecberg Group GmbH (Haiger, Germany) (represented by T. Sommer, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 in Case R 1261/2013-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs;

               —

               Set a date for the hearing.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Winder Controls’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 11 542 412

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-326/02: Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
9.11.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 274/19
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2002, for a            Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Petri Mikael              mission of the European Communities against the
Manninen on the following questions:                                                         Kingdom of Spain
1.   Is Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European                                     (Case C-324/02)
     Community to be interpreted as precluding a corporation
     tax credit system like the Finnish one described above, in
     which the recipient of a dividend who is generally liable                                 (2002/C 274/32)
     to tax in Finland is granted a corporation tax credit in
     respect of a dividend paid by a domestic share company,
     but not in respect of dividend income he receives from a         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     share company registered in Sweden?                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 Sep-
                                                                      tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
2.   If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative,       ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
     may Article 58 EC be interpreted as meaning that the             Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     provisions of Article 56 are without prejudice to Finland’s
     right to apply the relevant provisions of the Law on
     Corporation Tax Credits, since it is a condition for             The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
     obtaining a corporation tax credit in Finland that the
     company distributing the dividend has paid the corre-            —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     sponding tax or supplementary tax in Finland, which                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     does not take place with respect to a dividend paid from               Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999
     abroad, in which case taxation is not even carried out                 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen
     once?                                                                  dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and
                                                                            lead in ambient air or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                            communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive;
                                                                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in               Pleas in law and main arguments
the case of Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen against Riksskat-
                            teverket
                                                                      The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member
                        (Case C-320/02)                               States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the
                                                                      directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
                                                                      prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
                        (2002/C 274/31)
                                                                      19 July 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
                                                                      measures.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 10 September
2002, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Förvaltnings AB
Stenholmen against Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board) on
the following questions:
                                                                      Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Com-
1.   Can an animal be considered to be second-hand goods?             mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain
     If that question is answered in the affirmative, the Court
     is asked to answer the following question.
                                                                                (Case C-326/02)
2.   Is an animal which is purchased from a private individual
     (rather than a breeder) and which is sold, after training,                                (2002/C 274/33)
     for a specific purpose to be considered to be second-hand
     goods?
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Sep-
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                   1.    Must the answer given by the Court to question 4 in its
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                     judgment of 27 November 2001 in Case C-257/99
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            Barkoci and Malik be interpreted to mean that it is
                                                                               incompatible with Article 45(1) in conjunction with
                                                                               Article 59(1) of the Association Agreement with Bulgaria,
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                         Article 44(3) in conjunction with Article 58 of the
                                                                               Association Agreement with Poland and Article 45(3) in
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  conjunction with Article 59 of the Association Agreement
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   with the Slovak Republic for the competent authority,
      Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on                     when assessing an application submitted in the Nether-
      the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds                lands for a full residence permit with a view to establish-
      due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and             ment in accordance with the Association Agreement, to
      installations or, in any event, by failing to communicate                refrain from examining the contents of the application
      such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of                        solely on the ground that the applicant does not have a
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                    temporary residence permit? Does the fact that the
      directive;                                                               substantive entry requirements are clearly and manifestly
                                                                               satisfied make any difference to the answer to this
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             question?
                                                                         2.    Is it relevant for the purposes of answering the first
                                                                               question, and if so how, whether the person applying for
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               a full residence permit is legally resident in the Nether-
                                                                               lands at the time of the application, whether or not on
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC                    the basis of an entitlement other than a temporary
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member                   residence permit, such as the ‘free period’ referred to in
States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the                        Article 8 of the Vreemdelingenwet?
directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
1 April 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te                                            (Case C-330/02)
s’-Gravenhage by decision of that Court of 16 September
2002 in the case of Lili Georgieva Panayotova, Radostina
Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata Lis, Lubica Sopo-                                           (2002/C 274/35)
va, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika Rusiecka
 against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie
                         (Case C-327/02)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                         (2002/C 274/34)                                 Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the Rechtbank te
s’-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) of 16 September                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2002, received at the Court Registry on 18 September
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lili Georgieva
Panayotova, Radostina Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata              —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Lis, Lubica Sopova, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Rusiecka against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Inte-                     Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
gratie (Minister for Alien Affairs and Integration) on the                     the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
following questions:                                                           due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna by order of that court of 29 November 1997 in the case of E.D. Srl against Italo Fenocchio (Case C-412/97)

text:
C 41/12                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                                     (Case C-413/97)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992                                              (98/C 41/24)
     on the introduction of measures to encourage
     improvements in the safety and health at work of
     pregnant workers and workers who have recently                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     given birth or are breastfeeding (1), the Grand Duchy             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations                Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of
     under that Directive;                                             the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,
                                                                       of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     costs.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                            or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                      return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2), the time-limit for                  territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform
transposition expired on 19 October 1994.                                   the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of
                                                                            Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            Article 18 of that Directive;
(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.
(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
                                                                       2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                            costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Circondariale di Bologna by order of that court of                     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
29 November 1997 in the case of E.D. Srl against Italo                 Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
                            Fenocchio                                  transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
                        (Case C-412/97)                                so. In the present case, that period expired on
                                                                       15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of
                          (98/C 41/23)
                                                                       Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions (2).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
European Communities by order of the Pretura                           (2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
Circondariale       (Magistrates       Court),   Bologna,     of
29 November 1997, received at the Court Registry on
5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
E.D. Srl against Italo Fenocchio on the following question:
                                                                       Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
Must the prohibition of issuing an ingiunzione (summary                of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
order) where the same is to be served outside the Republic                                            Spain
or territories subject to Italian sovereignty Ð that
prohibition being laid down by the last paragraph of                                           (Case C-414/97)
Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure Ð be regarded                                         (98/C 41/25)
as a restriction or equivalent measure capable of
hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the
free movement of goods, services and capital guaranteed                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
by Articles 34, 59 and 73b of the Treaty of Rome?                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                       on 15 December 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Miguel Díaz-
                                                                       Llanos La Roche, Legal Adviser, and Carlos Gómez de la


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2003 in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v European Parliament (Officials — Open competition — Eliminating tests — Power of the selection board to change the minimum number of points required in the Notice of Competition — Tests of a comparative nature — Admissibility)

text:
C 112/28                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.5.2003
1.     There is no longer any need to give judgment on the actions for        1.     Dismisses the application;
       failure to act.
                                                                              2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the costs of the
2.     The Commission’s inaction between 1 January 2000 and                          Council.
       25 July 2001 is such as to render the Community liable.
3.     Within six months of the date of delivery of the present               (1 ) OJ C 79 of 10.3.01.
       judgment the parties shall inform the Court of the amount of
       damages which they claim, as agreed with the Commission.
4.     In the event of failure to agree the amount, the parties shall
       submit to the Court, within the same period, their calculations
       of the amount of damages attributable to the Commission’s
       inaction between 1 January 2000 and 25 July 2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5.     The costs are reserved.
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.
                                                                               in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v European Parliament ( 1)
                                                                              (Officials — Open competition — Eliminating tests —
                                                                              Power of the selection board to change the minimum number
                                                                              of points required in the Notice of Competition — Tests of a
                                                                                comparative nature — Admissibility)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 112/53)
                          of 25 February 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-4/01, Renco SpA v Council of the European
                                Union ( 1)
                                                                              In Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen, a member of the temporary
                                                                              staff of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxem-
(Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Tender                        bourg) represented by J. Chocroun, lawyer, against the Euro-
specification — Statement of reasons for the decision to                      pean Parliament (Agents: J. F. de Wachter and D. Moore) —
award the contract — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-                     application, principally, for the annulment of the decision of
              contractual liability of the Community)                         the selection board in Competition EUR/A/151/98 refusing to
                                                                              allow the applicant to take part in the tests subsequent to Test
                            (2003/C 112/52)                                   VII.A.(d) of that competition and, in the alternative, a claim for
                                                                              compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered,
                                                                              — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                       (Language of the case: French)                         M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                              J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                              has given a judgment on 26 February 2003, in which it:
In Case T-4/01: Renco SpA, established in Milan (Italy)                       1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board in Competition EUR/
represented by D. Philippe and F. Apruzzi, lawyers, with an                          A/151/98 refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the                            tests subsequent to Test VII.A.(d) of that competition;
European Union (Agents: F. van Craeyenest, M. Arpio Santac-
ruz and J. Stuyck) — application for damage allegedly suffered                2.     Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the
by the applicant following the decision of the Council not to                        applicant’s costs, including those relating to the application for
award it the contract for invitation to tender No 107865                             interim measures.
issued on 30 July 1999 (OJ S 146) for refitting and general
maintenance of the Council’s buildings — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,                  (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.01.
and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 February 2003, in which it:


               8.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/16

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett in the Case of Therese Slinning v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad
   (Case E-1/08)
   (2008/C 113/13)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 January 2008 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2008, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Therese Slinning v the State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment, when there is no entitlement to such treatment in the home State?

               2.

               Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 1 that the method of treatment in question must be considered to be implemented in the home State or the home State is considering its implementation in the future?

               3.

               Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treatment assessed according to accepted international methods within a medically justifiable time limit?
               Is it of significance for the answer to this question that:

                           (a)

                           coverage of such expenses may be refused even if the treatment abroad is considered as possibly more advanced than the treatment in the home State?

                           (b)

                           the patient, having decided to receive treatment abroad rather than an adequate treatment in the home State, does not get coverage for the costs of treatment abroad to the same extent as the treatment offered in the home State would have cost?

               4.

               Is it of significance for the answers to the questions above whether:

                           (a)

                           the patient as a matter of fact has not been offered the treatment in question in the home State which can be considered adequate treatment?

                           (b)

                           the treatment given abroad actually led to an improvement of the specific patient's state of health?


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-465/99 P: Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Decision reducing the financial contribution made by the European Social Fund — Possibility, for the Member State concerned, of reviewing a claim for payment in respect of which it has already certified the accuracy of the facts and accounts)

text:
14.7.2001               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/35
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 8 March 2001
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
in Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                             in Case C-465/99 P: Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de
                                                                             Serviços, SA v Commission of the European Communi-
(EAGGF — Cleaxance of accounts — 1995 — Application                                                          ties (1)
                  manifestly inadmissible in part)
                          (2001/C 200/63)                                    (Appeal — Decision reducing the financial contribution
                                                                             made by the European Social Fund — Possibility, for the
                                                                             Member State concerned, of reviewing a claim for payment
                                                                             in respect of which it has already certified the accuracy of
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                                  the facts and accounts)
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published                                  (2001/C 200/64)
               in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
In Case C-373/99 Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontoloaimos                                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
and I.-K. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: M. Condou-Durande), application for partial
annulment of Commission Decision C (1999) 2476 of 28 July
1999 amending Decision 99/187/EC on the clearance of the
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European                                    in the European Court Reports)
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
L 226, p. 26), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of
A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, L. Sevón                  In Case C-465/99 P: Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Serv-
(Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges,                     iços, SA (counsel: R. Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete
Advocate General: A. Tizzano, R. Grass, Registrax, made an                   and Miguel Pena Machete) — appeal against the judgment of
order on 8 March 2001, the operative part of which is as                     the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
follows:                                                                     European Communities of 16 September 1999 in Case T-
                                                                             182/96 Partex v Commission [1999] ECR II-2673, seeking to
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks     have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
      the annulment of Commission Decision 99/187/EC on the                  being Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
      clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in            T. Figueira, K. Simonsson and H. Speyart) — the Court,
      respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of        composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Sixth Chamber,
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to               V. Skouris and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
      the extent to which it imposes financial adjustments on the            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
      Hellenic Republic:                                                     8 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
      —     in respect of olive oil, in relation to problems concerning
            aid to producers and consumption aid;                            1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      —     in respect of cotton, in relation to problems concerning         2.    The application for legal aid is dismissed.
            aid to producers, and
                                                                             3.    Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, is ordered to
      —     in relation to beef and veal, regarding the deduction of               pay the costs.
            administrative costs from the amount of the premiums.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Case C-9/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Verviers — Belgium) — Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 2 — Article 5(1)(a) and (b) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract — Concepts of ‘sale of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ — Agreement for the distribution of goods)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Verviers — Belgium) — Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA
   (Case C-9/12) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 2 - Article 5(1)(a) and (b) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract - Concepts of ‘sale of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ - Agreement for the distribution of goods)
   2014/C 52/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de commerce, Verviers

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corman-Collins SA

      Defendant: La Maison du Whisky SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de commerce de Verviers — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Exclusive distribution of goods agreement concluded between a grantor of the exclusive distribution rights established in France and an exclusive distributor established in Belgium — Permissibility of a national law providing for the jurisdiction of the courts of the exclusive distributor, irrespective of where the grantor of the exclusive distribution rights has its registered office.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where the defendant is domiciled in a Member State other than that in which the court seised is situated, it precludes the application of a national rule of jurisdiction such as that provided for in Article 4 of Law of 27 July 1961 on Unilateral Termination of Exclusive Distribution Agreements of Indefinite Duration, as amended by the Law of 13 April 1971 on Unilateral termination of distribution agreements.

               2.

               Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule of jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of that provision for disputes relating to contracts for the supply of services is applicable in the case of a legal action by which a plaintiff established in one Member State claims, against a defendant established in another Member State, rights arising from an exclusive distribution agreement, which requires the contract binding the parties to contain specific terms concerning the distribution by the distributor of goods sold by the grantor. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case in the before it.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-11/95: BP Chemicals Limited v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Action for annulment - Time-limits - Persons individually concerned - Private market economy investor principle - Opening of the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty)

text:
7.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/15
    comply      with    Directive     96/97/EC     on    the       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
    men and women in occupational social security                  Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty
    schemes (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its      and Article 5 of the EC Treaty, together with Article 3 of
    obligations under that directive;                              Council Directive 96/97/EC, the French Republic was
                                                                   required to conform with that directive by 1 July 1997.
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                      (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 20.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          21 September 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                   of 15 September 1998                            Agreement (IV/34.600 Ð Night Services) (OJ L 259 of
in Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and                   7.10.1994, p. 20) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second
T-388/94: European Night Services Ltd (ENS) and Others             Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,
      v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                   has given a judgment on 15 September 1998, in which it:
(Competition Ð Transport by rail Ð Agreements on
overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel Ð
Restrictions on competition Ð Directive 91/440/EEC Ð               1. annuls       Commission       Decision    94/663/EC    of
Appreciable effect on trade Ð Supply of necessary services             21 September 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant
Ð Essential facilities' Ð Statement of reasons Ð                      to Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
                       Admissibility)                                  EEA Agreement (IV/34.600 Ð Night Services);
                       (98/C 340/26)
                                                                   2. orders the Commission to pay the costs;
         (Language of the case: English and French)
                                                                   3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                       Northern Ireland, as intervener, to bear its own costs.
In Joined Cases T-374/94: European Night Services Ltd              (1) OJ C 392 of 31.12.1994 and OJ C 386 of 31.12.1994.
(ENS), established in London, T-375/94: Eurostar (UK)
Ltd, formerly European Passenger Services Ltd (EPS),
established in London, represented by Thomas Sharpe
QC, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Alexandre
Nourry, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich, supported by SocieÂteÂ Nationale
des Chemins de Fer FrancËais (SNCF), established in Paris,           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of the Paris Bar, with an                              of 15 September 1998
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, T-384/94: Union                 in Case T-11/95: BP Chemicals Limited v. Commission of
Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC), established in                            the European Communities (1)
Paris, and NV Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), established             (State aid Ð Action for annulment Ð Time-limits Ð
in Utrecht, the Netherlands, represented by Erik H.                Persons individually concerned Ð Private market economy
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address           investor principle Ð Opening of the procedure provided
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc                                 for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty)
Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, and T-388/94: SocieÂteÂ
Nationale des Chemins de Fer FrancËais (SNCF),                                             (98/C 340/27)
established in Paris, represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                             (Language of the case: English)
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agents: Lindsey Nicoll and Paul Lasok),
against Commission of the European Communities                     In Case T-11/95: BP Chemicals Limited, established in
(Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Díaz, then          London, represented by James Flynn, Barrister, of the Bar
Giuliano Marenco and Ami Barav) Ð application for                  of England and Wales, and Alec Burnside, Solicitor, with
annulment of Commission Decision 94/663/EC of                      an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/16              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by United                 stetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsan-
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents:              wälte, Münster, with an address for service in
Lindsey Nicoll, Kenneth Parker and Rhodri Thompson)                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong & Dupong, 4Ð
against Commission of the European Communities                      6 Rue de la Boucherie, against Council of the European
(Agents: initially Jean-Paul Keppenne and Paul Nemitz,              Union (Agent: Arthur Brautigam) and Commission of the
subsequently Paul Nemitz and Nicholas Khan), supported              European Communities (Agents: Dierk Booû, Hans-Jürgen
by Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and                     Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application, under
Maurizio Fiorilli), and by ENI SpA, established in Rome,            Articles 178 and 215, second paragraph, of the EC Treaty,
and EniChem SpA, established in Milan (Italy),                      for an order directing the defendants to pay interest at the
represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and                 rate of 8 % per annum on the amount of compensation
Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with           paid to the applicants pursuant to Council Regulation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer
Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich Ð application for                   of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
annulment of the Commission decision of 27 July 1994                products temporarily prevented from carrying on their
regarding aid which Italy has decided to grant to EniChem           trade (OJ L 196 of 5.8.1993, p. 6), together with default
SpA (OJ C 330 of 26.11.1994, p. 7) Ð the Court of First             interest on the amounts thus calculated Ð the Court of
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                    First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, C. P. BrieÈt, R.             Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P.
García-Valdecasas, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki,                Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1998, in            1998, in which it:
which it:
1. annuls the Commission's decision of 27 July 1994
    regarding aid which Italy has decided to grant to               1. orders the defendants to pay the applicants Günter
    EniChem SpA in so far as it closes the examination                  Backhaus, Uwe Lorentz and Manfred Mittwede in
    under Article 93(3) of the Treaty of the capital                    respect of the period between 20 April and 28 June
    injection of LIT 3 000 billion to which it refers;                   1994 interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the
                                                                         compensation paid to them under Council Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an
2. dismisses the       remainder     of the  application   as            offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and
    inadmissible;                                                        milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on
                                                                         their trade;
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
    pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs, and orders the
    applicant to bear one-third of its own costs;
                                                                    2. orders the defendants to pay the applicant Paul
4. orders the United Kingdom, the Italian Republic, ENI                  Gövert in respect of the period between 9 May and
    SpA and EniChem SpA to bear their own costs.                         3 August 1994 interest at the rate of 8 % per annum
                                                                         on the compensation paid to him under that
                                                                         regulation;
(1) OJ C 87 of 8.4.1995.
                                                                    3. orders the defendants to pay to all the other applicants
                                                                         in respect of the period between 20 April and 3 August
                                                                         1994 interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                compensation paid to them under that regulation;
                    of 24 September 1998
in Case T-112/95: Peter Dethlefs and Others v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                             4. orders interest at the rate of 6 % per annum to be paid
                                                                         on those amounts with effect from the date of this
(Claims for compensation Ð Non-contractual liability Ð                   judgment;
Milk Ð Additional levy Ð Producers who have entered
into non-marketing or conversion undertakings Ð
Compensation Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 Ð
                            Interest)                               5. orders each of the parties to bear his own costs.
                         (98/C 340/28)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-112/95: Peter Dethlefs and Others, represented
by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechthild Düsing, Dietrich Man-


title: Case T-250/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/33

         Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)
   (Case T-250/15)
   (2015/C 245/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CLAN’ — Application for registration No 10 025 815

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 220/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition;

               —

               order that a costs award be made in the favour of the applicant and/or that the costs order of the First Board of Appeal be reversed.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in its characterisation of the level of attention of the ‘relevant consumer’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               The Board of Appeal failed to decide whether CLAN, when used in conjunction with MACGREGOR, was a fancy (i.e. meaningless) word to the relevant consumer or, in the alternative, was a word with a meaning they understood;

               —

               The Board of Appeal did not assess the similarity of marks on the correct legal and/or factual basis;

               —

               The Board of Appeal did not assess the likelihood of confusion on the correct legal and/or factual basis.


title: Case T-103/16: Action brought on 11 March 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/53

         Action brought on 11 March 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus)
   (Case T-103/16)
   (2016/C 156/72)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Weetabix Ltd (Kettering, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘Alpenschmaus’ — Application for registration No 10 198 992

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2016 in Case R 2725/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 January 1998 in Case T-172/97: Camar Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Application for the allocation of additional import licences - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Action for damages - No need to adjudicate - Removal from the Register)

text:
C 137/14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.5.98
1. dismisses the application;                                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 February 1998
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       in Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             (Officials Ð Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations Ð
                                                                     Claims which are manifestly inadmissible or wholly
                                                                                unfounded in law)
                                                                                (98/C 137/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     In Case T-195/96: Spyridoula Alexopoulou, an official of
                      of 19 March 1998                               the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels
in Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal v. Commission of
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
               the European Communities (1)
                                                                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
(Access to information Ð Commission Decision 94/90/                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
ECSC/EC/Euratom Ð Refusal of access Ð Scope of the                   Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) Ð application, first,
exception relating to the protection of the public interest          for annulment of the decision of the Commission of
Ð Court proceedings Ð European Convention on Human                   8 January 1996 classifying the applicant in grade A 7,
                       Rights, Article 6)                            step 5, and implicitly refusing to classify her in grade A 6,
                                                                     second, for annulment of the decision of 28 August 1996
                        (98/C 137/29)                                rejecting a complaint against that decision and, third, for
                                                                     compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                     applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                         composed of A. Saggio, President, and B. Vesterdorf and J.
                                                                     Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     13 February 1998, the operative part of which is as
In Case T-83/96: Gerard van der Wal, residing in                     follows:
Kraainem, Belgium, represented initially by Caroline P.
Bleeker and Laura Y. J. M. Parret, of the Hague Bar and
                                                                     1. the action is dismissed;
the Brussels Bar respectively, and subsequently by Laura
Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, supported              2. the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra
and Johannes S. van den Oosterkamp), against                         (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Wouter Wils and Ulrich Wölker) Ð application for the
annulment of the Commission's Decision of 29 March
1996 refusing the applicant access to letters sent by the
Directorate-General for Competition to national courts in
the context of the notice on cooperation between national                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                    of 28 January 1998
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh              in Case T-172/97: Camar Srl v. Commission of the
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                               European Communities (1)
judgment on 19 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                     (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
                                                                     Bananas Ð Application for the allocation of additional
                                                                     import licences Ð Action for a declaration of failure to
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                     act Ð Action for damages Ð No need to adjudicate Ð
                                                                                Removal from the Register)
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the                                     (98/C 137/31)
    defendant;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
3. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its                 In Case T-172/97: Camar Srl, having its registered office
    own costs.                                                       in Florence (Italy), represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ,
                                                                     assisted by Mariano Paolin and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                             Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Hubertus van Vliet, Paolo Ziotti and Alberto Dal
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 137/15
Ferro) Ð application for, first, a declaration that the             1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Commission failed to act by failing to rule on Camar's
application for the allocation of licences to import                2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
bananas from non-member countries or non-traditional
ACP bananas for 1997 and subsequent years on the basis
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
of the quantities which it had marketed in 1988, 1989 and
1990, and, second, an order requiring the Commission to
pay compensation for the damage occasioned by that
failure Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
28 January 1998, the operative part of which is as                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
follows.                                                                      OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 December 1997
1. It is unnecessary to adjudicate in the action for a              in Case T-260/97 R: Camar Srl v. Commission of the
    declaration of failure to act.                                                     European Communities
                                                                    (Common organisation of the markets Ð Bananas Ð
2. Case T-172/97 is removed from the Register of the                Application for interim measures Ð Request for the issue
    Court of First Instance.                                                              of import licences)
                                                                                (98/C 137/33)
3. Each party shall bear its own costs, including those
    relating to the application for interim measures.                               (Language of the case: Italian)
4. The intervener in the proceedings for interim measures           In Case T-260/97 R: Camar Srl, established in Florence
    shall bear its own costs.                                       (Italy), represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by
                                                                    Mariano Paolin and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar,
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Antonio Tanca), supported by
                                                                    the French Republic (Agent: FreÂdeÂric Pascal), application
                                                                    to the President of the Court of First Instance pursuant to
                                                                    Articles 185 and 186 to the EC Treaty for an order (a)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           suspending the Commission's decision of 17 July 1997
                      of 13 March 1998                              rejecting the application submitted by Camar seeking the
                                                                    adoption of specific measures within the meaning of
in Case T-247/97: Maria Lonuzzo-Murgante v. European                Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of
                        Parliament (1)                              13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the
(Officials Ð Application for person to be treated as                market in bananas (1) and, furthermore, (b) requiring the
dependent child Ð Time limit for bringing an action Ð               Commission to calculate the number of category B
    Council Regulation No 1182/71 Ð Inadmissibility)                licences, to which Camar is entitled in respect of 1998, by
                                                                    reference to the quantities of bananas imported in the
                        (98/C 137/32)                               three-year period from 1988 to 1990, and, in the
                                                                    alternative, to calculate the said licences by reference to
               (Language of the case: French)                       the quantities of bananas imported in the three-year
                                                                    period from 1989 to 1991, or by applying the criteria
                                                                    pointed out by the European Parliament and its
In Case T-247/97: Maria Lonuzzo-Murgante, official of               Amendment No 8 to the proposal of the Commission,
the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                    submitted on 8 March 1996, to amend Regulation (EEC)
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and              No 404/93 and, in the further alternative, to grant to
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             Camar financial aid equal to the market value of the
service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue             category B licences to be calculated according to one of
de Cessange, against European Parliament (Agents:                   the criteria set out above Ð the President of the Court of
Manfred Peter and Yannis Pantalis) Ð application for the            First Instance made an order on 10 December 1997, the
annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 6 February           operative part of which is as follows.
1997 rejecting the applicant's application for her daughter
to be treated as a dependent child and, in so far as                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
necessary, an application for annulment of the implied
decision of 6 September 1997 rejecting the applicant's
complaint against the abovementioned decision Ð the                 2. Costs are reserved.
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P.
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.           (1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 March 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows.


title: Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Banatrading GmbH against the Council of the European Union (Case T-3/99)

text:
13.3.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/35
    bananas imported from Costa Rica and Colombia in              such third countries as were members of the GATT in the
    Germany;                                                      amount of 236 000 tonnes in fulfilment of the
                                                                  most-favoured nation obligation. By the penal levy rule
                                                                  under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, the
2. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the          Council prevented the applicant from being able to make
    loss which it has suffered since 21 December 1996             use of the possibility of importing under Article 18 of
    through payment of customs duty on entry in respect           Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93. Although that rule came
    of the bananas imported from Costa Rica and                   into being on the recommendation of the Commission,
    Colombia and marketed by it in Germany;                       sole responsibility for legislative impropriety lay with the
                                                                  Council. As implementing legislator, the Commission was
3. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the          bound by the guidelines of the Council. Hence the sole
    loss which it has suffered since 21 January 1996              liability of the Council to pay compensation.
    through payment of interest as from commencement
    of proceedings of DM 324 294;                                 (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on
                                                                      the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ L 47,
                                                                      25.2.1993, p. 1).
4. order interest of 4 % on the applicant's claims for            (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
    damages, as from the commencement of proceedings;                 laying down detailed rules for the application of the
                                                                      arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ
                                                                      L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 6).
5. order the Council to pay the costs of the dispute;             (3) Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 T. Port GmbH & Co. v
                                                                      Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1998] ECR I-1023.
In the alternative:
5. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the
    above-mentioned losses suffered by it since
    8 September 1997;
                                                                  Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Banatrading GmbH
                                                                            against the Council of the European Union
Further in the alternative:                                                                 (Case T-3/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/66)
6. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the
    above-mentioned losses suffered by it since
    25 September 1997.                                                           (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                  Communities on 4 January 1999 by Banatrading GmbH,
In support of its claims, the applicant states that it            whose registered office is in Hamburg, represented by
suffered loss through being obliged, on account of the            Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.
penal levy under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EEC)
No 404/93 (1) in conjunction with the quota system of
Article 18 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
with Article 2 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (2),
to buy import licences for bananas from Costa Rica and
Colombia in order to be able to import bananas into the           1. order the Council to compensate the applicant for its
Community. However, as the Standing Appellate Body of                  loss suffered since 21 January 1996 through having to
the World Trade Organisation had determined on                         buy or obtain the use of import rights for bananas
25 September 1997, the applicant had the right to import               from Category A, B or C operators in order to market
bananas into the Community free of duty up to an annual                third-country bananas imported from Ecuador in
maximum of 236 000 tonnes.                                             Germany;
Costa Rica and Colombia were members of the GATT                  2. order the Council to compensate the applicant for its
before the market regulations came into force. Therefore,              loss suffered since 21 January 1996 through payment
in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 234 of               of customs duty on entry in respect of the bananas
the EC Treaty and the case-law of he Court of Justice (3),             imported from Ecuador and marketed by it in
Articles I.1 and XIII of the GATT, which was concluded                 Germany;
before the EEC treaty came into force, precluded the
application of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93.
                                                                  3. order the Council to compensate the applicant for its
                                                                       loss suffered since 21 January 1996 through not being
The infringements against Articles I.1 and XIII of the                 able to place the sums which it had to pay as a result
GATT, rendering the Council liable to pay compensation,                of the unlawful conduct of the Council on deposit at
lay in the failure to open a duty-free banana quota for                its bank;
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/36              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.3.1999
4. order interest of 4 % on the applicant's claims for           2. order the Commission to compensate the applicant in
    damages, as from the commencement of proceedings;                kind for its loss by issuing import licences;
5. order the Council to pay the costs of the dispute;
                                                                 3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
In the alternative:
                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
5. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the
    above-mentioned losses suffered by it since
                                                                 According to the applicant, the Commission has, on
    8 September 1997;
                                                                 several occasions following tropical storm damage, opened
                                                                 additional import quotas for bananas by means of
                                                                 tropical storm regulations'.
Further in the alternative:
6. order the Council to compensate the applicant for the         The applicant, which is a traditional importer of bananas
    above-mentioned losses suffered by it since                  and a Category A operator within the meaning of
    25 September 1997.                                           Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, states that it has repeatedly
                                                                 applied to the competent German authorities, without
                                                                 success, for an allocation out of such quotas (9 000 tonnes
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:              in total, of which 6 000 tonnes in respect of the 1995 and
                                                                 1996 quotas). Although it brought national legal
                                                                 proceedings against each refusal decision, its applications
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in           were either dismissed or withdrawn, since the German law
Case T-2/99.                                                     of administrative procedure did not permit further
                                                                 proceedings (claim for damages as a result of official
                                                                 liability). The applicant considers that its remedy in
                                                                 damages lies rather with the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                 European Communities.
Action brought on 4 January 1999 by O.G.T. Fruchthan-            By a decision of 29 April 1997, in a disputes resolution
delsgesellschaft against the Commission of the European          procedure, the WTO Panel stated that the tropical storm
                        Communities                              regulations', with their exclusive award of licences to
                                                                 Community and ACP producers, producer organisations
                        (Case T-4/99)                            and operators, would conflict, inter alia, with the
                       (1999/C 71/67)                            provisions of the GATT and the GATS. In the applicant's
                                                                 submission, the provisions of the GATT have since
                                                                 1 January 1995 taken general precedence over secondary
              (Language of the case: German)                     Community legislation and render Articles 1(2) and 2
                                                                 of the tropical storm regulations' for 1995 and 1996
                                                                 invalid.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 4 January 1999           The necessary conditions having been met, the applicant
by O.G.T. Fruchthandelsgesellschaft, whose registered            maintains that the Community organs which have enacted
office is in Cologne, represented by Gert Meier, Rechts-         Community law contrary to the GATT are liable to pay
anwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.                                 compensation for resulting loss.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                 In this particular case, the applicant submits that
                                                                 compensation in kind through the issue of import licences,
                                                                 serving as a precedent for the future, is appropriate,
1. order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
                                                                 especially as the value of the tropical storms import
    its loss suffered since 1 January 1995 through not
                                                                 licences not granted is difficult to ascertain. That would
    being granted tropical storms import licences (licences
                                                                 also satisfy the applicant's claims for compensation in
    for the importation of bananas out of the exceptional
    allocations granted by Regulations (EC) Nos 510/95           respect of lost profit.
    of 7 March 1995 (OJ L 51, 8.3.1995, p. 8), 1163/95
    of 25 May 1995, 2358/95 of 6 October 1995, 127/96
    of 21 January 1996 and 822/96 of 3 May 1996);


title: Case T-180/13: Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Pesquerias Riveirenses and others v Council

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/29

         Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Pesquerias Riveirenses and others v Council
   (Case T-180/13)
   2013/C 147/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Pesquerias Riveirenses, SL (Ribeira, Spain); Pesquerias Campo de Marte, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Anpajo, SL (Ribeira); Arrastreros del Barbanza, SA (Ribeira); Martínez Pardavila e Hijos, SL (Ribeira); Lijo Pesca, SL (Ribeira); Frigoríficos Hermanos Vidal, SA (Ribeira); Pesquera Boteira, SL (Ribeira); Francisco Mariño Mos y Otros, CB (Ribeira); Juan Antonio Pérez Vidal y Hermano, CB (Ribeira); Marina Nalda, SL (Ribeira); Portillo y Otros, SL (Ribeira); Vidiña Pesca, SL (Ribeira); Pesca Hermo, SL (Ribeira); Pescados Oubiña Perez, SL (Ribeira); Manuel Pena Graña (Ribeira); Campo Eder, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Laga, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Jalisco, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Jopitos, SL (Ribeira); y Pesca-Julimar, SL (Ribeira) (represented by: J. Tojeiro Sierto, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               The applicants claim that the General Court should annul Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 in so far as it amalgamates the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic in order to establish the TAC (total allowable catch) for blue whiting set out in Annexes IA and IB (pages 84 and 103, respectively; OJ 2013 L 23, p. 54).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39 TFEU

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard that Article 39 TFEU incorporates, as one of the objectives of the common agricultural and fisheries policy, the rational management of resources, and that the contested regulation infringes that provision inasmuch as, in failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north Atlantic, it does not reflect what must be understood as a rational management of resources. The applicants do not dispute that the situation in the northern component requires restrictive fisheries management measures, but that is not the case in the southern component, the species of which are not overfished. Such an approach also entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, which requires, according to settled case-law of the CJEU, comparable situations not to be treated differently and different situations not to be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and Article 6 of the New York Agreement of 1995

                           —

                           It is claimed in this regard that Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, establishes the precautionary approach as the guiding approach for the adoption of measures for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources; and that the same principle governs Article 6 of the ‘Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks’ (New York, 1995; OJ 1998 L 189, p. 14), to which the EU, and its then Member States, acceded on 19.12.2003, and which entered into force on 18.1.2004. The applicants claim that the management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic under the contested regulation, by failing to distinguish between the northern and southern components of stock, imposes such a drastic and indiscriminate catch-reduction in the southern component as to generate a ‘risk’ that would have required the application of the precautionary approach.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           The applicants claim in this regard that the EU’s management of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic for the year 2013 (contested Council Regulation), inasmuch as it fails to distinguish between the northern and southern components, imposes on the southern component traumatic measures (reduction of TAC) that go beyond that which is necessary to achieve the objective sought (recovery of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic) and, therefore, infringes the principle of proportionality.