title: Case C-392/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014  — SpA Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2014 — SpA Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE and Others
   (Case C-392/14)
   2014/C 372/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SpA Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU (1) of 5 September 2013 invalid for not having taken into account, in the calculation of the allowances to be allocated free of charge, the percentage of emissions associated with waste gas combustion — or steel processing gas — or of emissions associated with the heat produced by cogeneration, thereby infringing Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(1),(4) and (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2), going beyond the limits of the powers conferred by that directive and at variance with its objectives (to encourage more energy-efficient techniques and to protect the needs of economic development and employment)?

               2)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid, in the light of Article 6 TEU, on grounds of its inconsistency with Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the ECHR, owing to undue failure to respect the applicant companies’ legitimate expectation of remaining in possession of a good consisting of the number of the allowances allocated to them on a preliminary basis and to which they are entitled on the basis of Directive 2003/87, thereby depriving those companies of the economic benefit associated with that good?

               3)

               Furthermore, is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to its failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

               4)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, given that the decision infringes Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, fails to respect the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU and is also vitiated by failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in the light of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) did not take into account the effects of the changes in the interpretation of the term ‘combustion plant’ between the first phase (2005-2007) and the second phase (2008-2012) of the implementation of Directive 2003/87/EC?

               5)

               Is European Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of Articles 10a(5) and 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, and also on account of the failure to carry out a proper inquiry and error of assessment, in view of the fact that the calculation of the maximum number of allowances to be allocated free of charge (relevant for the purposes of defining a uniform cross-sectoral correction factor) was made on the basis of data, provided by the Member States, which are mutually inconsistent because based on different interpretations of Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

               6)

               Is European Commission decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 invalid as regards its definition of the cross-sectoral correction factor, on grounds of infringement of the procedural rules under Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case F-100/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2013 annual staff report — Decision of the Appeals Committee)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/33

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB
      (Case F-100/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2013 annual staff report - Decision of the Appeals Committee))
      (2016/C 364/38)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: G. Nuvoli and J.-P. Minnaert, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and subsequently by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Annulment, firstly, of the applicant’s staff report for 2013 and, secondly, the consecutive and connected decisions of the EIB such as the decision not to promote him to grade D and compensation for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Investment Bank.

         (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 41.


title: Case C-137/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 March 2016 by Juozas Edvardas Petraitis against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2015 in Case T-460/15, Petraitis v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/13

         Appeal brought on 7 March 2016 by Juozas Edvardas Petraitis against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2015 in Case T-460/15, Petraitis v Commission

   (Case C-137/16 P)
   (2017/C 112/19)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Appellant: Juozas Edvardas Petraitis, represented by T. Veščiūnas, advocatas

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 24 November 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Juozas Edvardas Petraitis to bear his own costs.


title: Case T-264/15: Action brought on 8 May 2015 — Gameart v Commission

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/17

         Action brought on 8 May 2015 — Gameart v Commission
   (Case T-264/15)
   (2015/C 254/21)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gameart sp. z o.o. (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission decision of 18 February 2015 in so far as it confirms the refusal to consider the request sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland for access to copies, held by that Ministry, of letters from the Republic of Poland to the Commission concerning the procedure conducted by the Commission in respect of a breach by the Republic of Poland of EU law in connection with the Law of 19 November 2009 on games of chance;

               —

               rule — in the event that it does not share the view, taken by the applicant, that the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents cannot be construed as authorising the European Commission to adopt a binding decision on a request for access to documents, submitted by a natural or legal person to an authority of a Member State, which has been forwarded by that State to the Commission — that, by virtue of Article 277 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation cannot be applied in the present case on the ground that it is invalid;

               —

               rule that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law, concerning the lack of competence of the Commission in the light of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 1049/2001

                           —

                           As the request was sent to an authority of a Member State and related to documents originating in that Member State, Article 5 of the regulation is not applicable. The mere fact that the Member State forwarded that request to the Commission pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 5 of that regulation does not confer competence on the Commission as the request does not concern documents originating with the Commission. Even if Article 5 of the regulation were applicable to the request, the second paragraph of Article 5 of the regulation could not be interpreted as authorising an EU institution to take a binding decision in respect of that request.

               2.

               The second plea in law, concerning a breach of Article 4(4) and 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001

                           —

                           As it took a decision on access to a document originating in the Republic of Poland, the Commission was under an obligation, pursuant to Article 4(4) of the regulation, to consult that State; this it failed to do. Access to a document originating in the Republic of Poland ought, in the absence of any objection expressed pursuant to Article 4(5) of the regulation, to be refused only in exceptional circumstances, which did not obtain in the present case.

               3.

               The third plea in law, concerning a breach of Article 296 TFEU

                           —

                           The Commission has failed in any way to provide grounds for its competence to adopt the decision in its contested part, even though the applicant dedicated by far the greater part of its confirmatory application to the issue of the Commission’s lack of competence. The information in that regard was not set out in the grounds of the contested decision, a fact which makes it impossible for the applicant itself to safeguard its rights before the General Court.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law, concerning a claim of invalidity pursuant to Article 277 TFEU

                           —

                           In the event that the General Court should find, contrary to the arguments put forward in the context of the first plea in law, that the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has to be interpreted as meaning that the transmission, by a Member State to an institution of the European Union, of a request for access to a document which is held by that Member State empowers that institution to take a binding decision in regard to that request, the applicant submits that Article 5, thus construed, cannot be based on Article 15(3) TFEU or on Article 255 EC as its proper basis and is for that reason invalid. In addition, that provision, thus construed, is incompatible with the grounds of Regulation No 1049/2001, which results in its invalidity in the light of Article 296 TFEU (Article 253 EC).


title: Case T-38/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/45

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission
   (Case T-38/07)
   (2007/C 82/96)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Shell Petroleum NV (The Hague, The Netherlands), Shell Nederland BV (The Hague, The Netherlands) and Shell Nederland Chemie BV (Rotterdam, The Netherlands) (represented by: T. Snoep and J. Brockhoff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   SPNV requests the Court:

               —

               to annul the decision, in full, insofar as it is addressed to SPNV;

               —

               in the alternative:

                           —

                           to annul Article 2(d) of the decision, or

                           —

                           to reduce the fine imposed as appropriate; and

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs.

         SNBV requests the Court:

               —

               to annul the decision, in full, insofar as it is addressed to SNBV;

               —

               in the alternative:

                           —

                           to annul Article 2(d) of the decision, or

                           —

                           to reduce the fine imposed as appropriate; and

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs.

         SNC requests the Court:

               —

               to annul Article 2(d) of the decision or to reduce the fine imposed as appropriate; and

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission violated Article 81 EC and Articles 7 and 23(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1) by:

               a)

               imputing the infringement also to Shell Petroleum NV and Shell Nederland BV even though the Commission acknowledges that only Shell Nederland Chemie BV participated directly in the infringement;

               b)

               increasing the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the applicants by 50 % for recidivism in breach of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty;

               c)

               applying a multiplier for deterrence in breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality; and

               d)

               setting the starting amount of the fine to be imposed on the applicants in breach of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2) and the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

         In the alternative, the applicants invoke a violation of the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Notice of 14 January 1998 entitled ‘Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty ’(OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).


title: Case C-199/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo lodged on 26 April 2010 — Secilpar v Fazenda Pública

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo lodged on 26 April 2010 — Secilpar v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-199/10)
   2010/C 195/08
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secilpar

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Question referred

   Having regard to the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention concluded between Portugal and Spain, does the deduction at source of [corporate] income tax for the year 2003, applied to a company not resident within national territory at the rate of 15 %, as the result of cash dividends made available to it in its capacity of shareholder of a company resident in a Member State, in accordance with Articles 80(2)(c) and 88(3)(b), (4) and (5) of the Código do IRC, Article 71(a) and (d) of the Código do IRS and Article 59 of the EBF as then worded, breach the principles of non-discrimination, freedom of establishment and free movement of capital embodied in Articles 12, 43, 46, 56 and 58(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435/EEC? (1)

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.


title: Case T-331/00: Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Laurence Bories and 4 others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 372/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to
The applicants are former temporary agents working for the                    Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 16 March 2000, 3 Februa-
Commission at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at Ispra, Italy.                ry 2000, 17 March 2000, 17 January 2000 and 16 March
                                                                              2000 not to accept the applicants’ candidature for the
                                                                              posts advertised in vacancy notices COM/R/5526/00 of
By the contested decisions, the Commission informed the                       24 February 2000, COM/R/5889/99 of 21 December
applicants that their applications for the two vacant posts had               1999, COM/R/5520/00 of 24 February 2000,
not been taken into consideration.                                            COM/R/5863/99 of 26 November 1999 and
                                                                              COM/R/5521/00 of 24 February 2000, or, in the alterna-
                                                                              tive, to annul those vacancy notices and, in so far as
The applicants criticise the Commission for having given                      necessary, annul the decision of the AECC of 25 July
priority to applications from officials, which were examined                  2000 rejecting the applicants’ complaints;
and compared on their own, without those of temporary
agents, including the candidatures of the applicants, being             —      order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
examined at the same time. By failing to consider the
                                                                              for the damage suffered as a result of that decision, such
comparative merits of all the candidatures, the Commission
                                                                              sum being set ex aequo et bono and provisionally;
infringed Articles 4, 7, 27, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations
and Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of other
servants and breached the principle of non-discrimination.              —     order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs.
Moreover, the applicants claim that the contested decisions are
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
devoid of any formal statement of reasons. Furthermore, they
were not taken in the interest of the service and are not
compatible with the new policy of the Commission vis-à-vis              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
research staff. Finally, the applicants take the view that the          relied on in Case T-330/00 Cocchi and Heinz v Commission.
contested decisions are acts of mismanagement and are
contrary to the duty of the administration to have regard for
the welfare of officials.
                                                                        Action brought on 3 November 2000 by Rougemarine
                                                                        SARL against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-333/00)
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Laurence Bories
and 4 others against Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                                            (2000/C 372/33)
                         (Case T-331/00)                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (2000/C 372/32)
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 3 November 2000 by Rougemarine
                                                                        SARL, whose registered office is at Paris, represented by
                                                                        Thierry Levy, of the Paris Bar.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
European Communities on 26 October 2000 by Laurence
                                                                              the European Communities of 5 September 2000;
Bories and Philippe Chemin, Laura Copes, Emanuele Mondini
and Helen Preissler, residing in Italy, represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                       —     annul Council Decision 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995;


title: Case C-85/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 February 2014 — KPN BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), other parties: UPC Nederland BV and Others

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 18 February 2014 — KPN BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), other parties: UPC Nederland BV and Others
   (Case C-85/14)
   2014/C 151/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: KPN BV

      Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

      Other parties: UPC Nederland BV, UPC Nederland Business BV, Tele2 Nederland BV, BT Nederland NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 28 of the Universal Service Directive (1) permit the imposition of tariff regulation, without a market analysis having indicated that an operator has significant market power in regard to the regulated service, although the cross-border selectability of non-geographic telephone numbers is entirely possible from a technical point of view and the only obstacle to access to those numbers lies in the fact that the tariffs charged mean that a call to a nongeographic number is more expensive than a call to a geographic number?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, the following two questions arise for the College van Beroep:

                           (a)

                           Does the power to regulate tariffs also apply in the case where the effect of higher tariffs on the call volume to non-geographic numbers is merely limited?

                           (b)

                           To what extent do the national courts still have scope to assess whether a tariff-related measure required under Article 28 of the Universal Service Directive is not unreasonably onerous for the transit provider, given the objectives which it seeks to attain?

               3.

               Does Article 28(1) of the Universal Service Directive leave open the possibility that the measures referred to in that provision may be taken by an authority other than the national regulatory authority which exercises the powers referred to in Article 13(1) of the Access Directive, (2) with the result that the latter authority would merely have enforcement powers?

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

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


title: Case T-558/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory v Council

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/22

         Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory v Council
   (Case T-558/12)
   2013/C 46/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory (Changshu City, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the exclusion from the dumping calculation of certain export transactions of the applicant violates Articles 2(11), 2(8), 2(9), 2(7)(a) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, the principle of non-discrimination and Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of certain adjustments requested by the Applicant violates Article 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Article 2.4 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. In the alternative, the applicant considers that the Council violated Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


title: Case F-56/11: Action brought on 12 May 2011 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/31

         Action brought on 12 May 2011 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-56/11)
   2011/C 226/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to downgrade the applicant by two grades in the same function group.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2010 downgrading the applicant by two grades in the same function group following the decision of the Appointing Authority of 16 November 2009 opening disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-215/00: Action brought on 22 August 2000 by Société Civile d'Exploitation Agricole La Conqueste against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission deducting 2 ×                  —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000 of
      BEF 60 000 from his monthly salary;                                       26 June 2000;
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant interest at the         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs, with all the
      legal rate from 21 December 1999;                                         legal consequences which that entails.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and principal arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The present action is directed against Commission Regulation
By order of 4 December 1997 made in Case C-60/97 X v                      (EC) No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the
Commission (1), the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal                 Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain
lodged against the judgment delivered by the Court of                     names in the Register of protected designations of origin and
First Instance on 12 December 1996 in Case T-130/95 X v                   protected geographical indications provided for in Council
Commission (2). The applicant/appellant in those proceedings              Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographi-
was ordered to pay the costs.                                             cal indications and designations of origin for agricultural
                                                                          products and foodstuffs (1), in so far as it recognises ‘canard à
The applicant in the present case, who was also the appli-                foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ as a protected geographical indication.
cant/appellant in the cases cited above, contests the defendant’s
decision to deduct at source from his salary a sum equivalent             In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
to the costs which, according to the Commission, were
incurred by it in the proceedings before the Court of Justice
and the Court of First Instance.                                          —     that the French authorities have failed to comply with the
                                                                                essential procedural requirements laid down in
                                                                                Article 7(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                                 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
                                                                                cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
—     infringement of Articles 62 and 85 of the Staff Regu-                     ucts and foodstuffs (2);
      lations of officials;
                                                                          —     that the protected geographical indication (PGI) in issue
—     abuse of powers in the present case;
                                                                                cannot be registered, in the light of the requirements laid
                                                                                down by the applicable Community rules. In that regard,
—     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                the applicant states in particular that the promoters of
      reasons.
                                                                                the PGI have sought to procure the attachment of
                                                                                extremely rigorous conditions to the production of
(1) Not published.                                                              ‘canard du Sud-Ouest’ which have nothing to do with the
(2) [1996] ECR-SC I-A-603 and [1996] ECR-SC II-1609.                            origin or monitoring of such production or the quality of
                                                                                the production of ducks and ‘foie gras’, but which tend to
                                                                                place the greatest emphasis on a purely small-scale
                                                                                production structure, despite the fact that such a structure
                                                                                has no bearing whatever on the authenticity or quality of
                                                                                the manufactured products. The requirements imposed
                                                                                have no connection, therefore, with any attempt to secure
                                                                                protection in respect of geographical origin, and cannot
Action brought on 22 August 2000 by Société Civile                              legally form part of the registration of the PGI without
d’Exploitation Agricole La Conqueste against the Com-                           distorting the object of the European protection pro-
            mission of the European Communities                                 cedure.
                          (Case T-215/00)                                       The applicant further claims that those unwarranted
                                                                                conditions attaching to the registration of the PGI of
                          (2000/C 316/56)                                       ‘canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ indicate a wish to distort
                                                                                free competition amongst the producers of ‘foie gras du
                                                                                Sud-Ouest’ themselves.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 (1) OJ L 154 of 27.6.2000, p. 5.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
European Communities on 22 August 2000 by Société Civile
d’Exploitation Agricole La Conqueste, established at Morlaas
(France), represented by Arnaud Lyon-Caen, of the Paris Bar.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 October 1997 in Case T-229/94: Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Carriage by rail of maritime containers - Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Dominant position - Abuse - Fine - Criteria of assessment - Principle of proportionality - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Principle of legal certainty)

text:
C 387/ 14                 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 12 . 97
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in
                          of 15 October 1997                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                       Rue v. Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-331/94 : IPK-München GmbH v. Commission of                   ( Agents : initially Norbert Lorenz and Géraud de Bergues,
                  the European Communities (')                         then Klaus Wiedner and Heinz-Joachim Freund ) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of Commission Decision
(Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project —
                                                                       94/210/EC of 29 March 1994 relating to a proceeding
Reduction — Application for annulment — Admissibility
                                                                       pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty ( IV/
— Confirmatory act — Legal certainty — Legitimate
                                                                       33.941 — HOV-SVZ/MCN, OJ L 104, 23 . 4 . 1994, p. 34 )
             expectations — Statement of reasons)                      or, in the alternative , the annulment or reduction of the
                             ( 97/C 387/22                             fine imposed by that decision on the applicant — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
                                                                       Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, A.
                 (Language of the case: German)                        Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
                                                                       Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator for the Registrar;
                                                                       has given a judgment on 15 October 1997, in which it:
In Case T-331 /94: IPK-München GmbH, established in
Munich ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Joachim Priess,
of the Brussels Bar, 13 Place des Barricades, Brussels v.
 Commission of the European Communities, ( Agent:                       1 . dismisses the application;
Jürgen Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the
 Commission's decision of 3 August 1994 not to pay the
 balance of financial assistance granted to the applicant in
 connection with a project to create a databank on                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
 ecological tourism in Europe — the Court of First Instance
 ( First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili
 and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator                  (') OJ C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October
 1997, in which it:
 1 . dismisses the application;
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  (') OJ C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                                                of 22 October 1997
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96: Stichting
                                                                         Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK) and Federatie van
                                                                         Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven (FNK) v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1 )
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Competition — Mobile cranes — Article 6 of the
                           of 21 October 1997                            European Convention on Human Rights — Acting within
                                                                         a reasonable time — Certification system — Prohibition
  in Case T-229/94 : Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission of                    on hiring — Recommended rates — Internal rates —
                   the European Communities (')                                                            Fines)
   (Competition — Carriage by rail of maritime containers                                             ( 97/C 387/24 )
   — Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Agreements,
   decisions and concerted practices — Dominant position —
   Abuse — Fine — Criteria of assessment — Principle of
   proportionality — Rights of the defence — Access to the                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                 file — Principle of legal certainty)
                                97/C 387/23
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 : Stichting
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK ) and Federatie
                                                                           van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven ( FNK ), whose
                                                                           registered office is in Culembourg, Netherlands,
   In Case T-229/94 : Deutsche Bahn AG, established in                     represented by Martijn van Empel, of the Amsterdam . Bar,
   Frankfurt ( Germany ), represented by Jochim Sedemund,                  and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with an address


title: Case T-113/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH v OHIM (SupplementPack) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community word mark SupplementPack — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH v OHIM (SupplementPack)
   (Case T-113/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community word mark SupplementPack - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 80/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: K. Mende, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 996/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SupplementPack as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case C-314/05 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Creative Technology Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) José Vila Ortiz (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word mark PC WORKS — Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative mark W WORK PRO — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/20

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Creative Technology Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) José Vila Ortiz
   (Case C-314/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word mark ‘PC WORKS’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘W WORK PRO’ - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
   (2006/C 294/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Creative Technology Ltd (represented by: S. Jones and P. Rawlinson, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: S. Laitinen, Agent) José Vila Ortiz
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 25 May 2005 in Case T-352/02 Creative Technology Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) dismissing as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for the Community trade mark PC WORKS for products in Class 9 for the annulment of decision R 265/2001-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 4 September 2002 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing to register that trade mark in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the national figurative mark W WORK PRO for products in Class 9
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Creative Technology Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case C-85/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/18

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-85/05)
   (2005/C 93/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 22 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000, p. 1.


title: Case C-164/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte (Taxation — Corporation tax — Transfer of an interest in a partnership to a capital company — Book value — Value as part of a going concern — Agreement on the prevention of double taxation — Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains — Different treatment — Restriction on free movement of capital — Preserving the balanced allocation of powers to impose taxes between the Member States — Proportionality)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte
   (Case C-164/12) (1)

   (Taxation - Corporation tax - Transfer of an interest in a partnership to a capital company - Book value - Value as part of a going concern - Agreement on the prevention of double taxation - Immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains - Different treatment - Restriction on free movement of capital - Preserving the balanced allocation of powers to impose taxes between the Member States - Proportionality)
   2014/C 93/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) — Partnerships established in another Member State contributing interests in an undertaking to a national capital company in exchange for shares in that company — Legislation providing that in such a case the capital contributed must be entered in the balance sheet of the capital company at its true value and not its book value, thus bringing forward the date on which the unrealised capital gains will be taxed — Whether it is possible to pay the tax in five annual instalments if a guarantee is provided.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may justify the legislation of a Member State which requires assets in a limited partnership contributed to the capital of a capital company with its registered office in the territory of that Member State to be assessed at their value as part of a going concern, thus giving rise to the taxation, before they are actually realised, of the capital gains relating to those assets generated in that territory, if it will in fact be impossible for that Member State to exercise its powers of taxation in relation to those gains when they are in fact realised, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

               2.

               The national legislation of a Member State which provides for the immediate taxation of unrealised capital gains generated in its territory does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of the preservation of the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States, provided that, where the taxable person elects for deferred payment, the requirement to provide a bank guarantee is imposed on the basis of the actual risk of non-recovery of the tax.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012


title: Case T-30/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION)
   (Case T-30/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger and M. Zöbisch, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2013 (Case R 1749/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case C-425/05: Action brought on  29 November 2005  by the Commission against Ireland

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/15

         Action brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission against Ireland
   (Case C-425/05)
   (2006/C 48/28)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29.11.2005 by the Commission, represented by Mr. Ulrich Wölker and Mr. Michael Shotter, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to provide the information on methyl bromide referred to in Article 4(2)(iii), the information on halons referred to in Articles 4(4)(iv) and 5(3) and the information on the schedules and results of random checks on the import of controlled substances referred to in Article 20(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2)(iii), 4(4)(iv), 5(3) and 20(3) of the Regualtion;

               2.

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Articles 4(2)(iii), 4(4)(iv), 5(3) and 20(3) of the Regulation provide for the submission of information to the Commission in relation to the main issues covered by the Regulation. The communication of this information — i.e. annual information concerning methyl bromide and halons, together with information on the schedules and results of random checks on imports of controlled substances — is essential for the achievement of the objectives set by the Regulation and for the implementation of the engagements taken by the European Community according to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the obligations arising from the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which the Community is party after Council Decision 88/540/EEC (2).
   To date Ireland has not communicated to the Commission the requisite information pursuant to the aforementioned articles of the Regulation.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. OJ L 244, 29.09.2000, p. 1-24.

      (2)  OJ L 297, 31.10.1998, p. 8


title: Case T-134/01: Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/25
Grounds of claim:             No risk of confusion within the           Grounds of claim:             Incorrect      interpretation   of
                              meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of                                           article 7 (1) b) of Council Regu-
                              Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94                                        lation 40/94 (1).
                              of 20 December 1993 on the
                              Community trade mark, since
                              there is neither a visual nor pho-        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                              netic similarity between the trade            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                              marks nor do they desgignate
                              goods which may be confused
                                                                        Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs Ver-
                                                                        sandschlachterei KG against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
Action brought on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises
Incorp. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                        Internal Market                                                          (Case T-134/01)
                        (Case T-130/01)                                                          (2001/C 245/41)
                        (2001/C 245/40)                                                   (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          European Communities on 18 June 2001 by Hans Fuchs
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            Versandschlachterei KG, Duisburg (Germany), represented by
European Communities on 11 June 2001 by Sykes Enterprises               Ulrich Schrömbergs and Lothar Harings, Rechtsanwälte.
Incorp., Florida, USA, represented by Eberhard Körner of
Lichtenstein Körner & Partners, Stuttgard, Germany.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the Commission to pay the applicant
                                                                              DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
                                                                              1 March 2000;
—     annul the contested decision of 7 March 2001 in Case
      No. R 0504/2000-3;
                                                                        —     in the alternative, order the Bundesanstalt für Landwirt-
                                                                              schaft und Ernährung to pay the applicant
—     order the Office to publish the trademark application                   DEM 13 130,04 plus interest at 8 % per annum as from
      concerned;                                                              1 March 2000;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Sykes Enterprises Inc.                    In connection with a programme to supply agricultural
munity trade mark:                                                      products to the Russian Federation (1), two tendering pro-
                                                                        cedures took place: one for procuring the products and the
The Community trade           Word mark: ‘Real people, real             other for their delivery to Russia. Commission Regulation
mark concerned:               solutions’       —      Application       (EC) No 1135/1999 (2) was to constitute the basis for the
                              no 1040534 for certain services           procurement of the products. Transport was dealt with by
                              in classes 35, 37 and 42                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1955/1999 (3).
Decision of the Exam-         Rejection of the Application
iner:                                                                   The applicant submitted a tender for the procurement of pork
                                                                        for subsequent delivery to Russia and obtained the contract
Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the Appeal                   for the procurement of one lot. A third party obtained the
Appeal:                                                                 contract for delivery.
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
The dispute between the parties concerns the question of the             Pleas in law and main arguments
costs which the applicant must bear, in accordance with
Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1135/1999, in its capacity as
a party awarded a contract for the procurement of agricultural           The applicant contests the abovementioned recovery decision
products.                                                                of the Commission demanding partial repayment of a total
                                                                         sum of EUR 20 000 transferred to the applicant in the
                                                                         context of the Eurathlon programme, in the amount of
The applicant argues that Article 6 of Regulation (EC)                   DEM 31 911,11, on the ground of impermissible profit.
No 1135/1999 does not oblige the party awarded the procure-
ment contract to draw up the transport documents for the
delivery of the goods to Russia by the party awarded the                 The applicant submits that the conditions for a demand for
transport contract, or to bear the costs thereof. All costs arising      repayment of the subsidy given, agreed between the parties
from the transport side of the tender were the responsibility of         when the subsidy was granted, are not met. In particular, the
the party awarded the transport contract. It was impossible for          final accounts for the project do not show a profit, so that the
the procurer to supply appropriate transport documents.                  demand for repayment is unlawful. The defendant might at
                                                                         most be entitled to a proportionate share of 18,4 % of the
                                                                         surplus. It is, however, demanding payment of the entire
In the alternative, the applicant bases its claim on failure by          (incorrectly calculated) surplus.
the Commission to fulfil its precontractual duty of providing
information. As the interpretation of the provision in dispute,
and thus the scope of the contractual obligation, was not                Moreover, the applicant relies on limitation of the defendant’s
clearly formulated, the Commission should have informed the              claims. It submits that the ISO 1994 event took place in 1994,
applicant on the point. Failure to provide such information              and any claims for repayment arose in that year. The notice to
caused loss to the applicant.                                            pay dates from 9 April 2001, however, and was therefore
                                                                         made at least six years in law after the alleged debt arose.
(1) In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of
    17 December 1998 on a programme to supply agricultural
    products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1998 L 349, p. 12) and
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999
    laying down general rules for the application of Council Regu-
    lation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural
    products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).             Action brought on 19 June 2001 by Comafrica SpA
(2) OJ 1999 L 135, p. 85.                                                and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co. against the
(3) OJ 1999 L 242, p. 13.                                                         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-139/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/43)
Action brought on 19 June 2001 by Stadtsportverband
Neuss e.V. against Commission of the European Com-                                          (Language of the case: English)
                             munities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-137/01)                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 19 June 2001 by Comafrica SpA,
                         (2001/C 245/42)                                 Genoa, Italy, and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co., Ham-
                                                                         burg, Germany, represented by Bernard O’Connor and Philip
                                                                         Bastos G. Martin of O’Connor and Company, Brussels
                   (Language of the case: German)                        (Belgium).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicant claims that the Court should:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 June 2001 by Stadtsportver-                   —     declare the application admissible;
band Neuss e.V. of Neuss, Germany, represented by Heinz
Günther Hüsch, lawyer.                                                   —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC,
                                                                               Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 in so far as it
                                                                               affects the applicants, or in the alternative to declare the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    said regulation void erga omnes;
—      Annul the recovery decision of the European Commission            —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC,
       of 9 April 2001, account number 3240302372;                             Commission Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 in so far as
                                                                               it affects the applicants, alternatively, to declare the said
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   regulation void erga omnes;


title: Case C-154/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   (Case C-154/12)
   2012/C 174/27
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken

      Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

      Questions referred

   Is Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, (1) now Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, (2) in imposing on the sugar-beet sector a charge of EUR 12 per tonne of the quota sugar, invalid:

               —

               inasmuch as the legal basis used by the legislature for the introduction of this provision is former Article 37(2)(3) EC, now Article 43(2) TFEU;

               —

               inasmuch as the legislature, which justified the charge as a measure intended to finance the expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar even though it actually funds direct aid and/or is intended to preserve the budget neutrality of the ‘2006 sugar reform’, did not clearly and unequivocally set out the reasons for the introduction of the charge as is required by Article 296 TFEU (former Article 253 EC);

               —

               inasmuch as the ‘sugar-beet’ industry is the only sector on which such a charge contributing to the general budget of the European Union has been imposed, the charge should be considered as discriminatory both between growers having maintained beet production and those having ceased beet production and between the ‘sugar-beet’ industry and any other agricultural or non-agricultural sector;

               —

               inasmuch as the charge should be considered as breaching the principle of proportionality in being neither appropriate nor necessary to finance the expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar, nor proportionate in relation to the real expenditure and the prospective future expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.


title: Case T-116/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 November 2011 — EMA v Commission (Application for Interim measures — Research and technological development programme — Decision ending the participation in a project — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 November 2011 — EMA v Commission
   (Case T-116/11 R)
   (Application for Interim measures - Research and technological development programme - Decision ending the participation in a project - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
   2012/C 13/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Association médicale européenne (EMA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A.Franchi, L. Picciano and N. di Castelnuovo)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Delaude and N. Bambara, then S. Delaude and F. Moro, Agents, and D. Gullo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 5 November 2010 terminating the contracts concluded for two research projects and the debit note of 13 December 2010 informing the applicant of the establishment of debts in the execution of those contracts.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-494/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/40

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission
   (Case T-494/08)
   (2009/C 32/78)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void and that the Commission's decision of 9 October 2008 refusing access to the same documents is non-existent;

               —

               alternatively, declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's decision of 9 October 2008 refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Aarhus airport. The said decision was followed by the express decision of 9 October 2008. The annulment of the express decision is alternatively sought by the applicant in the present case.
   In support of its application the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.
   First, the applicant submits that the Commission's refusal infringes Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001. First of all, it states that the Commission performed an overall examination instead of carrying out an individual examination of the documents referred to in the request for access. In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission has not assessed to the requisite legal standard the existence of the specific, actual and foreseeable risk of harming the protected interests set out in Article 4(2) and (3) of the Regulation. Moreover, the applicant argues that the Commission failed to assess to the requisite legal standard that partial disclosure of the documents would have harmed the protection of legal advice, the purpose of investigations or the Commission's decision-making process and thus infringed Article 4(6) of the Regulation and it has failed to apply properly the principle of proportionality. Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to assess the public interest considerations regarding the right of defence and transparency and openness relied on by the applicant.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission's implied refusal of access and its decision of 9 October 2008 infringe the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 253 EC and Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001.

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


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 October 1998 in Case T-100/98: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) (1999/C 1/29)

text:
C 1/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio Creus and              1. The application is dimissed as inadmissible;
Alex Subirachs Amigó, of the Barcelona Bar, with an
address for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for                     2. The applicant is to pay the costs;
annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of
24 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for
reclassification and, second, of the Commission's decision
of 29 April 1997 rejecting the complaint lodged against             3. The applicant for leave to intervene is to bear its own
the decision of 24 October 1996 Ð the Court of First                    costs.
Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President; J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 14 October 1998, the                    (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 28 October 1998
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                           in Case T-100/98: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                    (Action for damages Ð Action manifestly lacking any
                                                                                foundation in law)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/29)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                     of 23 October 1998
in Case T-609/97: Regione Puglia v. Commission of the
      European Communities and Kingdom of Spain (1)
                                                                    In Case T-100/98: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
(Agriculture Ð Regulation having general application Ð              Middlesex, England, represented by Raymond St John
    Action brought by a regional body Ð Inadmissibility)            Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple,
                                                                    London, against Commission of the European
                        (1999/C 1/28)                               Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð application under
                                                                    Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage which the
                                                                    applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     publication, under the Commission's responsibility, of a
                                                                    fact sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and
                                                                    qualifications for general and specialist medical
                                                                    practitioners Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
In Case T-609/97: Regione Puglia, represented by                    Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President,
Francesco Rosi and Antonio Campagnola, of the Rome                  V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               an order on 28 October 1998, the operative part of which
Chambers of Penning & AssocieÂs, 31 Grand-Rue, v                    is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) and Kingdom of Spain Ð
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1979/97 of 10 October 1997 fixing the estimated                  1. The application is dismissed.
production of olive oil and the amount of the unit
production aid that may be paid in advance for the
1996/97 marketing year (OJ L 278, 11.10.1997, p. 12) Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed              2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and V. Tiili and P.
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
23 October 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:


title: Case C-434/07: Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/38

         Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-434/07)
   (2007/C 269/65)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and M. Telles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declaration that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/41/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 amending Council Directive 76/115/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to anchorages for motor-vehicle safety belts or, in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive into domestic law expired on 19 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 149.


title: Case T-223/15: Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Morton’s of Chicago v OHIM — Mortons the Restaurant (MORTON’S)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/20

         Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Morton’s of Chicago v OHIM — Mortons the Restaurant (MORTON’S)
   (Case T-223/15)
   (2015/C 228/25)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mortons the Restaurant Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MORTON’S’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 951 291

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2015 in Case R 46/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Respondent to pay the Proprietor’s costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-220/99: Action brought on 9 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
7.8.1999                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/25
Action brought on 9 June 1999 by the Commission of the                      while the 1 316 ‘outstanding’ or ‘very interesting’ sites rep-
   European Communities against the French Republic                         resented 13.6 % of that territory. This demonstrates that, in
                                                                            addition to the sites being insufficient in number, the selected
                                                                            area of the notified sites is insufficient.
                           (Case C-220/99)
                                                                            The Member States were to transmit their full list of sites
                                                                            before 9 June 1995. Even if it is taken into account that the
                           (1999/C 226/42)
                                                                            format to be used still did not exist on that date, the
                                                                            information could have been submitted rapidly once that
                                                                            format had been notified, on 19 December 1996. However,
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            on 15 March 1999, of the 672 sites referred to in the list, 379
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1999
                                                                            had been notified with appropriate information for the
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                            purposes of Article 4(1) of the directive while 293 sites had
by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-
                                                                            been notified without that information.
Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to its Legal
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Centre Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the
    full list of sites which is referred to in the first subparagraph
    of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May                Action brought on 10 June 1999 by the Commission of
    1992 (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of                  the European Communities against the French Republic
    wild flora and fauna, and information on the sites in
    accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1),
    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                   (Case C-224/99)
    that directive;
                                                                                (1999/C 226/43)
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 June
                                                                            1999 by the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                            Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                            of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
According to the Commission, the process of proposing sites
in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive must be carried out in the broadest possible manner
by including in the national list all the sites hosting the natural         1. declare that, by failing to take the requisite steps to
habitat types in Annex I and the native species in Annex II                     implement the judgment delivered by the Court on
which exist in the territory of the Member State concerned, in                  13 March 1997 in Commission v France (1), the French
so far as those sites are representative and relevant having                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
regard to the criteria set out in Annex III, with a view to the                 228(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
objective of conservation pursued by the directive. The French                  300 EC);
Republic has failed to comply with the obligation to transmit
a full list of the sites concerned since, as the French authorities
                                                                            2. order the French Republic to pay the Commission a fine
themselves acknowledge, the 672 sites appearing on the
                                                                                of EUR 142 425 per day in respect of each day, from the
various lists transmitted in turn do not include any military
                                                                                date of notification of the judgment in which it was found
land. Nor has the French Republic proposed any site in respect
                                                                                not to have fulfilled its obligations, on which it failed to
of the habitats of a number of natural habitat types referred to
                                                                                comply with the abovementioned requirement;
in Annex I or of a number of species in Annex II when,
according to the available scientific data, those habitat types
are present in its territory. The Commission stases, third, that            3. order the French Republic to pay the costs of this case.
the number of sites notified is in any event insufficient having
regard to the sites on French territory meriting inclusion in the
national list; it considers that the French Government should               Pleas in law and main arguments
have transmitted a list which, if not identical to the list of
1 316 ‘outstanding’ or ‘very interesting’ sites appearing in the            — in its reply to the reasoned opinion, the French Govern-
survey compiled by the National Museum for Natural History                      ment acknowledged that no measure had been adopted to
under the auspices of that government, listing the entire area                  implement the judgment in which the Court found that
of each of those sites, should at least have been largely based                 ‘by maintaining in force Article L 213-1 of the Code du
on it. Furthermore, the 672 sites notified by the French                        Travail prohibiting nightwork by women in industry ... the
Republic represent, in area, only 2.5 % of national territory,                  French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under ...