title: Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-139/98)

text:
21.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/17
In particular, it emphasizes that the attempt to ascribe to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
local area networks a function which is peculiar to
telecommunications is based on an excessively broad
interpretation of the concept of telecommunications. In its         The applicant contests the revocation of certain binding
view, the chief characteristic of telecommunications                tariff information concerning various machines having the
equipment is that it enables data to be transmitted over            functions of commutators and intended for use in local
unlimited distances; consequently, it is radically different        area networks.
from that used in local area networks. Moreover, that
difference in terms of distance is directly linked to a             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
functional difference. Transmissions within a local area            Case T-133/98 Hewlett Packard France v. Commission.
network are extremely rapid; such rapidity is technically
possible over short distances only. With long-distance
telecommunications, by contrast, the maximum speed of
transmission is very much slower.
The applicant further claims that the equipment in                  Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the
question simultaneously fulfils the three conditions which,         Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato against
according to Note 5(B) of Chapter 84, must be met in                       the Commission of the European Communities
order for a unit to be regarded as forming part of a
complete system, and that it thus falls, in accordance with                               (Case T-139/98)
Note 5(C), within the scope of heading No 84.71: it                                        (98/C 358/34)
constitutes equipment of the type used exclusively in
automatic data processing systems, is connectable to the
central processing unit through the local area network or                          (Language of the case: Italian)
networks and is also able to accept data in a form which
can be used by the system.                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 September
                                                                    1998 by the Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di
                                                                    Stato (Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies),
                                                                    represented by Pier Giorgio Ferri and Danilo Del Gaizo,
                                                                    of the Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, with an address
Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard
                                                                    for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue
Europe BV against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Marie-Adelaïde.
                         Communities
                       (Case T-134/98)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (98/C 358/33)
                                                                    Ð annul the contested decision, pursuant to the form of
               (Language of the case: French)                           order sought under Heading B (point 8 et seq.);
An action against the Commission of the European                    Ð in the alternative, annul that part of the decision
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       challenged in the remaining forms of order, and
Instance of the European Communities on 20 August                       accordingly reduce the scale of the fine imposed;
1998 by Hewlett Packard Europe BV, the registered office
of which is at Amstelveen (Netherlands), represented by
Fabrice Goguel and Anne Trager, of the Paris Bar, with an           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant in the present case (the AAMS') is a body
                                                                    forming part of the Amministrazione Finanziaria dello
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/406/EC of 16 June                    Stato Italiano (Financial Administration of the Italian
    1998, published on pages 45 and 46 of the Official              State), which, in addition to performing various
    Journal of the European Communities of 23 June                  administrative functions, is also involved in the production
    1998, in so far as it requires the revocation of Binding        and wholesale distribution of processed tobacco products.
    Tariff Information Nos FR 12030199701394,                       Through the contested decision (1), the defendant cast
    12030199702134 and 12030199702135, which had                    doubt on the compatibility with Article 86 of the EC
    correctly classified the machines in issue under heading        Treaty of certain conduct by the applicant organisation in
    8471.80.10;                                                     relation to a number of clauses in the standard-form
                                                                    contract for the distribution of cigarettes of other
                                                                    manufacturing undertakings and in relation to certain
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                        unilateral steps taken in regard to imported cigarettes and
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/18               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.11.98
distribution and sales organisations (2). According to the            refrains from taking when acting commercially as a
Commission, the measures with which it takes issue tend               producer or wholesale distributor of cigarettes.
to protect and reinforce the applicant's own position on
the market in cigarettes.
                                                                      (1) Commission Decision of 17 June 1998 concerning a procedure
                                                                          under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.010-F3 Ð
                                                                          Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato).
In support of its submissions, the applicant points in the            (2) Articles 2 and 3 of the above Decision.
first place to the absolute vagueness and inadequacy of the
factors which the Commission chose for the purpose of
distinguishing the Italian market from the remainder of
the European market. So far as concerns its dominant
position on the market for the wholesale distribution of
cigarettes, the applicant submits that, in order to
circumvent       its    alleged    hegemony,        Community
                                                                      Action brought on 9 September 1998 by Filippos Pierros
undertakings did not solely have the possibility of
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities
establishing their own distribution network, since there
are on the Italian market other undertakings operating in                                      (Case T-141/98)
the sector for the distribution of similar categories of
                                                                                (98/C 358/35)
product. Consequently, foreign undertakings have a real
possibility of utilising the numerous commercial operators
within the sector who are authorised by the fiscal
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
authorities to trade in other products subject to excise
duty and treated for administrative and accounting
purposes in the same way as processed tobacco.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
With regard to distribution activity, the applicant submits           Instance of the European Communities on 9 September
that, following liberalisation, it operates within the                1998 by Filippos Pierros, resident in Athens, Greece,
distribution market on behalf of third parties to the extent          represented by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar,
to which it has space available in its warehouses exceeding           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
the distributon requirements for its own products, since              of Brown Holding S.A., 310 route d'Esch, L-1471
development of its present distribution network does not              Luxembourg.
form part of its interests. With more particular regard to
the distribution contract, it must be pointed out that there
is no excess in the distribution capacity of AAMS in                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
relation to the requiremens of normal provision of the
market and that the refusal to negotiate individual clauses
with one or other producer is justified by the need not to            Ð annul Commission Decision DG XXIII/MaS (98)
assume divergent and particular obligations in regard to                   1009, asking the applicant to refund the sum of ECU
one producer which the applicant would be unable to                        24 000 on the basis that it was unduly paid in
guarantee to other producers within the context of its                     connection with the grant given by the Commission to
general     distribution     organisation.    Moreover,     the            the Parliamentary Intergroup for Cooperation with the
applicant's restricted storage capacity explains both the                  Countries of Eastern Europe for the purpose of
limit of 30 % on the potential introduction of additional                  organising the European Conference on Tourism held
quantities over those determined by consumption forecasts                  in Budapest on 11, 12 and 13 April 1991, as contrary
as the limits imposed on the introduction of new cigarette                 to Community law, in particular Articles 173 and 190
brands. So far as concerns the clause relating to the                      of the Treaty, on the ground that it infringes the duty
control of cigarettes, it should be borne in mind that the                 to state reasons for administrative measures and
applicant is entitled, and has the duty, to carry out such                 general principles of Community law (namely the right
controls on the products which it markets for the purpose                  to a hearing and the principles of good administration,
of ensuring that it does not infringe the rules applicable to              of diligence and of the protection of legitimate
the sector.                                                                expectations), and on the ground of misuse of powers;
Finally, the applicant challenges the accuracy of the                 Ð annul on the same grounds every administrative,
Commission's allegations of unilateral abusive practices                   judicial or enforcement measure which is consequent
(refusal to authorise increases in monthly quantities and                  or dependent upon that decision, in particular the
measures concerning both sales outlets and retail shops).                  debit note for ECU 24 000;
With particular regard to the problems concerning retail
shops, it must be pointed out that, in so far as adopted in
the exercise of public powers, this specific conduct could            Ð declare that any claim of the Commission in this
not have been evaluated within the scope of the procedure                  matter is time-barred by virtue of Article 4 of the
established under Council Regulation (EEC) No 17/62,                       applicant's declaration of 11 January 1991;
which concerns the applicant's activities exclusively in its
capacity as an undertaking. The rules on competition are
not directly applicable to the measures which the AAMS                Ð allow the applicant the opportunity to consult the file;


title: Case C-596/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/24

         Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Bionorica SE against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14 Bionorica SE v European Commission
   (Case C-596/15 P)
   (2016/C 016/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Bionorica SE (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau, N. Hußmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               conduct an oral hearing;

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 September 2015 in Case T-619/14;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the form of order which it seeks, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal:

               —

               Procedural errors: the General Court partially took incorrect facts as a basis and thus reached a wrong decision, which puts a burden on the appellant. The General Court wrongly assumed that the appellant is a food producer which, moreover, was concerned only by deferred health claims within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. (1) Furthermore, the General Court partially provided an inadequate statement of grounds for its decision. The General Court did not address in detail the content of the Commission’s letter allegedly putting an end to the failure to act and thus reached a wrong decision.

               —

               Infringement of EU law: the General Court wrongly refused to recognise the conditions of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission’s failure to act was not brought to an end. In addition, the General Court incorrectly assessed Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, in particular Articles 17 and 28 thereof. Deferred and authorised health claims cannot be treated as equivalent. The legal consequences resulting from the transitional provisions are not sufficiently predictable.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.


title: Case T-161/07: Action brought on 9 May 2007 — Group Lottuss v OHIM — Ugly (COYOTE UGLY)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/37

         Action brought on 9 May 2007 — Group Lottuss v OHIM — Ugly (COYOTE UGLY)
   (Case T-161/07)
   (2007/C 155/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Group Lottuss Corporation, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and J Arribas García, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: UGLY, INC
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul (in part) the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2007 in so far as that relates to the refusal of the Community trade mark application No 2.428.795 ‘COYOTE UGLY’ by Group Lottuss Corporation, SL

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Group Lottuss Corporation, SL.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘COYOTE UGLY’ (application No 2.428.795) for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ugly, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘COYOTE UGLY’ for goods in Classes 14, 16, 21, 25, 32 and 34, and earlier well-known unregistered word and figurative marks ‘COYOTE UGLY’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 16, 21, 25, 32, 33, 34, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part, in so far as the Community trade mark application was refused in relation to services in Class 42.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it rejected the opposition to ‘entertainment services, services for discos, night clubs’ applied for in Class 41, and rejection of the application for such services.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case F-79/07: Action brought on 31 July 2007 — Braun-Neumann v Parliament

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/31

         Action brought on 31 July 2007 — Braun-Neumann v Parliament
   (Case F-79/07)
   (2007/C 235/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun-Neumann (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the defendant to pay with retroactive effect from 1 August 2004 the other half of the survivor's pension in right of his wife Gisela Mandt, née Neumann, who died on 25 July 2004, in the monthly sum of EUR 1 670,84 plus interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank on the marginal lending facility, increased by 3 %;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament undertook to pay the applicant 50 % of the survivor's pension in his capacity as widower of Ms Gisela Mandt, née Neumann. The applicant seeks payment of the survivor's pension in full.
   The complaint is directed against the European Parliament's decision to recognise the second marriage of the deceased, even though the decree of divorce of the Tribunal de première instance de Namur of 6 September 1995 in relation to the first marriage was not recognised by the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht in its decision of 11 October 1999. The applicant states that he is therefore the sole ‘surviving spouse’, since the second marriage of the deceased to Mr Wolfgang Mandt was not legally valid.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  13 December 2005  in Case C-78/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum eV (Appeal — Aid granted by the German authorities for the acquisition of land — Scheme for privatisation of land and restructuring of agriculture in the new Länder)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 13 December 2005
   in Case C-78/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum eV (1)

   (Appeal - Aid granted by the German authorities for the acquisition of land - Scheme for privatisation of land and restructuring of agriculture in the new Länder)
   (2006/C 36/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-78/03 P: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Flett and V. Kreuschitz), the other parties to the proceedings being the Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M. Lumma), intervener at first instance and Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum eV, established in Borken (Germany), (represented by: M. Pechstein) — appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 19 February 2003 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Makarczyk, Presidents Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2002 in Case T-114/00 Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought by Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum eV before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for annulment of the Commission decision of 22 December 1999 authorising State aid under Articles 87 and 88 (ex Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty;

               3.

               Orders Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum eV to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2005 in Case T-277/03 Dionysia Vlachaki, spouse of Petros Eleftheriadis v Commission of the European Communities (Former auxiliary staff — Recovery of remuneration unduly paid after expiry of the contract — Interest on arrears — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons — Force majeure)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 March 2005
   in Case T-277/03 Dionysia Vlachaki, spouse of Petros Eleftheriadis v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Former auxiliary staff - Recovery of remuneration unduly paid after expiry of the contract - Interest on arrears - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons - Force majeure)
   (2005/C 115/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case T-277/03: Dionysia Vlachaki, spouse of Petros Eleftheriadis, residing in Polydroso Amarousiou (Greece), represented by T. Sigalas, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: I. Dimitriou and G. Wilms, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment or partial variation of Commission decision C(2003)738 final of 25 March 2003 concerning the recovery of remuneration unduly paid to the applicant, a former auxiliary agent — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Action brought on 22 August 1996 by RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-131/96)

text:
  26 . 10 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/ 19
  Action brought on 22 August 1996 by RWE Energie                       The dispute concerns the question whether the Commission
  Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European             can refuse to deal with an application submitted to it for
                             Communities                                negative clearance, alternatively for exemption under
                            Case T-131 /96 )                            Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, where a national
                                                                        competition authority has initiated its own parallel
                            ( 96/C 318 /35 )
                                                                        procedure and an appeal against its decision is pending
                                                                        before the national courts .
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        The applicant considers that the defendant has acted
                                                                        unlawfully in refusing to deal with its application for
  An action against the Commission of the European
. Communities was brought before the Court of First                     negative clearance . According to Article 9 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                        No 17, the Commission has sole power to declare Article 85
  Instance of the European Communities on 22 August 1996
                                                                        ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty inapplicable pursuant to Article 85 (3 ) .
  by RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft, Essen ( Federal
                                                                        Consequently, it enjoys an 'exemption monopoly'. It is
  Republic of Germany ), represented by Dr Gerhard
  Wiedemann and Dr Jens Fleischhauer, Rechtsanwalte ,
                                                                        generally thought to follow from that monopoly that the
                                                                        Commission is obliged to examine and determine
  Diisseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the Chambers of Luc Frieden, of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 62
                                                                        applications for exemption . There is thus no scope for any
  avenue Guillaume .                                                    decentralized application of Article 85 . Furthermore, the
                                                                        power of the Bundeskartellamt to apply Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
                                                                        EC Treaty does not relieve the Commission of its task of
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                          examining, with reference to Article 85 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ), the
                                                                        electric power concession agreement which was properly
  — declare that, by refusing to deal with the applicant's              notified to it .
        application of 26 October 1995 for negative clearance
        pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation No 17,              The applicant further states that it is incumbent on the
        alternatively for exemption pursuant to Article 85 ( 3 ) of     Commission to develop, and then apply, its own
        the EC Treaty, in relation to the electric power                competition policy . The assignment of that task to a
        concession agreement concluded between the applicant            national cartel authority is not consistent with the system of
        and the City of Nordhorn on 20 and 21 April 1 995 ( Case        attribution of competence provided for by EC competition
        IV/E-3/35.800 ), the defendant has infringed the EC             law .
        Treaty,
                                                                        Moreover, the defendant's inaction creates the risk that,
        alternatively :                                                 following the conclusion of the national proceedings, the
                                                                        Bundeskartellamt may impose administrative penalties on
        in so far as the defendant's communication of 18 June           the applicant pursuant to German competition law . If the
        1996 , which was served on the applicant's                      Bundeskartellamt's prohibition order were to be judicially
        representatives on 25 June 1996 , falls to be assessed as a     upheld , the applicant would be legally prevented from
        decision, annul that decision , thereby obliging the            performing the power concession agreement notified by it,
        defendant to process and determine the applicant's              notwithstanding the possible eligibility of that contract for
        application of 26 October 1995 ,                                exemption . Thus , pending adoption of the Commission 's
                                                                        formal decision, the applicant would be subject to an
  — order the defendant to pay the costs .                              administrative prohibition precluding performance of the
                                                                        contract, for which no provision is made under the EC
                                                                        competition rules relating to notified agreements .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
  The applicant formally notified the Commission of an
  exclusive contract concluded by it with the City of
  Nordhorn ( concerning the use of rights of way for the
  provision of electric power ). The German Bundeskartellamt
  ( Federal Cartel Office ) subsequently prohibited the                 Action brought on 30 August 1996 by M. Boessen against
                                                                                the Economic and Social Committee
  implementation of certain provisions of that contract
  pursuant to Article 85 ( 1 ) in conjunction with paragraph 47                                 ( Case T-133/96 )
  of the GWB ( Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschrankungen —                                           ( 96/C 318/36 )
  law against restrictions on competition ). That decision was
  prefaced by communication from the defendant informing
  the Bundeskartellamt that, ' for the time being', it did not                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
  intend 'to initiate a procedure under Article 9 ( 2 ) of Council
  Regulation No 17, with the legal consequences flowing                 An action against the Economic and Social Committee was
  from Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17'. In the                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Commission 's view, 'the system of decentralized application          Communities on 30 August 1996 by M. Boessen, residing at
  of the EC competition rules ' enabled it to 'refrain ' from           Lanaken ( Belgium ), represented by C. M. E. M. Paulussen,
  dealing with an application for exemption under Article 85            of the Maastricht ( Netherlands ) Bar, with an address for
  ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty for as long as the 'pending national           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
  procedure has not arrived at a definitive result'.                    rue Goethe .


title: Case T-315/07: Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Grohe v OHIM — Compañía Roca Radiadores (ALIRA)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/26

         Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Grohe v OHIM — Compañía Roca Radiadores (ALIRA)
   (Case T-315/07)
   (2007/C 235/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Grohe AG (Hemer, Germany) (represented by: A. Lensing-Kramer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Compañía Roca Radiadores, S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 19 June 2007 in Case R 850/2006-4;

               —

               alternatively, annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it finds that there is a similarity of goods between ‘kitchen faucets’ and ‘cast-iron bathtubs’ and, consequently, a likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs;

               —

               alternatively, annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it finds that there is a phonetic similarity in Spain between the mark applied for and the opposing mark and, consequently, in that respect a likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs;

               —

               alternatively, annul or amend the contested decision in so far as it finds that there is a lack of recognition in Spain of the name AKIRA in relation to a Japanese comic and, consequently, in that respect a likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALIRA’ for goods in Class 11 (Application No 2 766 640).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Compañía Roca Radiadores, S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AKIRA’ for goods in Class 11 (No 2 045 604).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed; registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

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


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. Citicorp Kartenservice GmbH (Case C-148/97)

text:
 14 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 181 /7
      collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention                  postal service in Member State A to demand internal
      and/or the CEPT Agreement:                                            rates for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B
                                                                            to addressees resident in Member State A or to refuse
                                                                            to deliver such letters if internal rates are not paid is
                                                                            contrary to the guarantee of the free movement of
      Is the second paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty                 goods where the content of the letters is determined by
      to be interpreted as meaning that a law of Member                     an undertaking in Member State A and transmitted by
      State A ratifying the Conventions of the Universal                    electronic data transfer to an undertaking having its
      Postal Union of 14 December 1989 is completely                        seat in Member State B in order to be printed out,
      inapplicable or only in so far as payment of internal                 prepared for dispatch and handed over to the postal
      rates in addition to the postal charges paid in Member                service there ?
      State B and/or in addition to the terminal dues
      collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention
      or the CEPT Agreement may be demanded or enforced
      by refusing to deliver the mail in question ?
                                                                        3 . In the event that the answer to the above questions
                                                                            submitted for a preliminary ruling discloses an
                                                                            infringement of community law only because the
                                                                            postal service of Member State A receives or can
                                                                            enforce, by refusing to deliver mail, payment of
                                                                            internal rates in addition to the postal charges paid in
                                                                            Member State B or in addition to the terminal dues
                                                                            collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention
                                                                            and/or the CEPT Agreement:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesge
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of
25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. Citi
                   corp Kartenservice GmbH
                                                                            Is the second paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty
                         ( Case C-148/97 )                                  to be interpreted as meaning that a law of Member
                                                                            State A ratifying the Conventions of the Universal
                           ( 97/C 181 / 13 )                                Postal Union of 14 December 1989 is completely
                                                                            inapplicable or only in so far as payment of internal
                                                                            rates in addition to the postal charges paid in Member
                                                                            State B and/or in addition to the terminal dues
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      collected pursuant to the Universal Postal Convention
European Communities by the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher                      or the CEPT Agreement may be demanded or enforced
Regional Court ) Frankfurt am Main by order of that court                   by refusing to deliver the mail in question ?
of 25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. Citi
corp Kartenservice GmbH on the following questions:
                                                                        4 . Is the answer to Questions 1 , 2 and 3 altered by the
                                                                            fact that the undertaking having its seat in Member
1 . Must Article 90 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as                      State B which is responsible for printing out mailings,
      meaning that, in so far as a law ratifying the                        preparing them for dispatch and delivering them to the
      Conventions     of    the  Universal   Postal    Union   of
                                                                            postal service in that country is linked, as a member of
      14 December 1989 creates the right for the postal                     the same group, to the undertaking in Member State A
      service of Member State A to demand internal rates
                                                                            which determines the content of the mailings ?
      for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B or to
      refuse delivery if internal rates are not paid, where the
      content of the letters is determined by an undertaking
      in Member State A and transmitted by electronic data
      transfer to an undertaking having its seat in Member              5 . Does the answer to Questions 1 , 2 and 3 depend on
      State B in order to be printed out, prepared for                      whether the undertaking having its seat in Member
      dispatch and handed over to the postal service there,                 State B which is responsible for printing out mailings,
      that law constitutes a State measure by which,                        preparing them for dispatch and delivering them to the
      contrary to Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, a measure              postal service in that country operates only for the
      was adopted conflicting with Article 86 of the EC                     undertaking in Member State A which determines the
     Treaty which does not fall within the exceptions                       content of the mailings or for a number of principals
     contemplated by Article 90 ( 2 )?                                      of the same type ?
2 . Are Articles 30 et seq. and 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty
     to be interpreted as meaning that the power of the


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 May 1998 in Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures - Application for interim measures - Commission decision rejecting a tender)

text:
25.7.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 234/27
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                  1. Dismisses the application as unfounded;
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30            2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament (Agent: Yannis
Pantalis) Ð application for annulment of the decision of           (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to
grade C 3 in the course of the 1996 promotion procedure
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998,                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in which it:
                                                                                of 14 May 1998
                                                                   in Case T-262/97: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. Annuls the decision of the Parliament not to promote                            the European Communities (1)
     the applicant to grade C 3 in the course of the 1996                (Action for damages Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
     promotions procedure;
                                                                                (98/C 234/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                   In Case T-262/97, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,
( ) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
 1                                                                 represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3
                                                                   Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                   Richard Lyal) Ð application, in substance, for
                                                                   compensation for the damage alleged to have been caused
                                                                   to the applicant by the Commission's failure to adopt the
                                                                   interim measures he had requested in the context of a
                                                                   complaint against certain anticompetitive practices lodged
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         under Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of
                       of 9 June 1998                              6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing
                                                                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special
in Case T-176/97: Alan Hick v Economic and Social                  Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87) Ð the Court of First Instance
        Committee of the European Communities (1)                  (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
(Officials Ð Promotion Ð Official made available to                order on 14 May 1998, the operative part of which is as
work in the department in which he was previously                  follows:
employed Ð Secondment in the interests of the service Ð
                      Misuse of powers)                            1. The application         is  dismissed    as   manifestly
                        (98/C 234/53)                                   inadmissible.
                                                                   2. The applicant shall pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
In Case T-176/97: Alan Hick, an official of the Economic
and Social Committee of the European Communities,
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                    OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Economic and Social
Committee of the European Communities (Agents: MoiseÂs                                    of 26 May 1998
Bermejo Garde and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for              in Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
annulment of Decision No 439/96 A of the Economic and               Cooperation v Commission of the European Communities
Social Committee of 30 September 1996 promoting Mr J.
                                                                   (Interim measures Ð Application for interim measures Ð
to grade A 3 and appointing him Head of the Division for
                                                                             Commission decision rejecting a tender)
social, family, educational and cultural affairs within
Directorate B Ð Consultative work, and of the decision of                                  (98/C 234/55)
the same date rejecting the applicant's application for that
post Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                               (Language of the case: French)
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas
and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for                 In Case T-60/98 R: Ecord Consortium for Russian
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in             Cooperation, comprising the following members: Danagro
which it:                                                          Adviser A/S, established at Glostrup (Denmark), Plunkett
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
Foundation, established at Long Hanborough (United                 navigation calculations that the crew would otherwise
Kingdom), Irish Agri-Food Development Ltd, established             have to handle.
at Dublin, represented by Mia Declercq-Devisch and Kurt
Haegeman, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service         By the contested decision the Commission approved
in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue               individual aid granted by the French authorities to the
Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities                   French company Sextant, acting as project manager for
(Agent: Marie-JoseÂe Jonczy) Ð application for interim             research and development of a new FMS adapted to
measures in relation to a Commission decision of                   Airbus aircraft. Sextant is a subsidiary of Thomson CSF
17 March 1998 declaring inadmissible a tender submitted            and Aerospatiale.
by the applicant in response to an invitation to tender for
a project financed under the TACIS programme (Project
FDRUS 9701, entitled: Russia: Promoting Co-operative              The applicant is of the opinion that the Commission has
Ventures by Independent Farmers') Ð the President of the           infringed Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty by making an
Court of First Instance made an order on 26 May 1998,              incorrect assessment as to the precompetitive nature of the
the operative part of which is as follows:                         project and as to the incentive effect of the aid. Contrary
                                                                   to what the Commission asserts, the applicant believes
                                                                   that the aid should not have been approved under the
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Framework.
                                                                   The applicant further contends that, because of the
2. The decision as to costs is reserved.
                                                                   complexity of the market, the Commission should have
                                                                   opened the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC
                                                                   Treaty. By failing to do so, the Commission has infringed
                                                                   essential procedural requirements and has thus deprived
                                                                   the applicant of the opportunity to submit its comments
                                                                   on the proposed aid. If a procedure under Article 93(2)
                                                                   had been opened, the applicant would have submitted its
Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Honeywell Inc. against
                                                                   observations. The applicant argues that the Commission
      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   would not have concluded that the aid was compatible
                       (Case T-59/98)                              with the Treaty if it had been duly informed of all the
                                                                   pertinent facts and implications through an Article 93(2)
                        (98/C 234/56)
                                                                   procedure.
              (Language of the case: English)                      Finally, the applicant submits that Article 190 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty has been infringed in that the Commission gave
                                                                   insufficient reasons for the contested decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998
by Honeywell Inc., represented by Bernard van de Walle
de Ghelcke, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Offices of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                   Action brought on 21 April 1998 by Van Den Bergh
                                                                   Foods Limited against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 Communities
                                                                                (Case T-65/98)
Ð annul Decision No. N584/97 of the Commission                                             (98/C 234/57)
    concerning aid to Sextant Avionique for the
    development of a new flight management system                                 (Language of the case: English)
    adapted to Airbus aircraft, communicated to the
    applicant by letter D/50515 of 5 February 1998; and
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1998
                                                                   by Van Den Bergh Foods Limited, represented by Malcolm
                                                                   Nicholson and Michael Rowe, with an address for service
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
                                                                   Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.
The applicant, a company incorporated under law of the
United States of America, is a leading supplier of avionics        The applicant claims that the Court should:
systems and products for the commercial, military and
space market, who developed the industry's first flight            Ð declare the Commission decision of 11 March 1998
management system (FMS'). The FMS is the centrepiece                  relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of
of an aircraft, able to control the flight from take-off all           the EC Treaty (Case Nos. IV/34.073, IV/35.436 and
the way through to landing, performing all of the complex              IV/34.395) void and annul it in its entirety;


title: Case T-397/03: Action brought on 10 December 2003 by the Fédération de l'Hospitalisation Privée ("FHP") against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 47/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     so far as necessary, also annul the decisions against which
                                                                                the complaint was brought, namely:
The applicant, a former official of the Commission, worked
for several years in the Berlaymont building which was at the                   —     the decision of the Commission mpt to take any
time contaminated with asbestos. In 1996, the applicant                               steps to rectify any errors in counting committed
sought recognition of her illness as an occupational disease                          during the 2002 staff committee elections to elect
and, in 1998, she requested that a medical committee be                               the Brussels local staff committee;
consulted in accordance with Article 21 of the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities.                   —     the decision communicated on 10 January 2003 by
That medial committee initially adopted a majority opinion in                         the chairperson of the electoral bureau, following
2000 but, following a complaint from the applicant, the                               two requests submitted by the applicant, dated
defendant decided to refer the matter back to it. By letter of                        23 December 2002;
7 October 2003, the Commission informed the applicant that
the medical committee had lodged its opinion. By the same                 —     order the Commission to pay EUR 29 635 by way of
letter, the Commission informed the applicant that it con-                      damages;
firmed its decision not to recognise the applicant’s medical
complaint as being occupational in origin. By letters of 17 and           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
27 October 2003, the Commission charged to the applicant
part of the fees and expenses of the members of the medical
committee.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges irregularity of
the opinion of the medical committee and of the decisions and
acts relating thereto, breach of the duty to have regard for the          In support of his application, the applicant alleges manifest
welfare of officials as regards the decision concerning the fees          error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the
and expenses, breach of the principle of sound administration,            welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration
misuse of powers and breach of legitimate expectations.                   and infringement of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Joseph Vanhel-
lemont against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2003 by the Fédération
                                                                          de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’) against the Commission
                         (Case T-396/03)                                                   of the European Communities
                          (2004/C 47/57)
                                                                                (Case T-397/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/58)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                     (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 December 2003 by Joseph
Vanhellemont, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas
Vogel, lawyer.                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 10 December 2003 by the Fédér-
                                                                          ation de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’), established in Paris,
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority              represented by Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, avocat.
      on 26 August 2003 and notified on 5 September 2003,
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 1 April
      2003 seeking the annulment of a decision of the chairper-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      son of the electoral bureau of 10 January 2003 who, after
      two requests of 23 December 2002, refused to recount                —     Declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
      the votes cast in the elections for the Brussels local staff              ties has failed to act with regard to the complaint filed
      committee, held between the 2 and 14 December 2002,                       under number A/40342-H3;
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/30                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
—     Declare that the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      ties failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
      establishing the European Community by failing to
      adopt a decision following the complaint lodged by the              —     annul the decision of the Commission of 10 March 2003
      applicant on 8 December 2000;                                             in implement of the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance of the European Communities of 26 February
—     Order the Commission of the European Communities to                       2003 in Case T-212/01;
      pay the costs incurred by the applicant, amounting to a
      minimum of EUR 25 000.                                              —     annul the report of 25 October 2000 of the doctor in
                                                                                charge of the applicant’s case, notified to the applicant on
                                                                                10 March 2003, and the task entrusted to him;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs;
The applicant states that it is acting on behalf of two
organisations which on 8 December 2000 had lodged a                       —     in the alternative, declare that the report of 25 October
complaint with the Commission concerning the methods of                         2000 must be disregarded in the procedure considering
public-sector hospital financing by the French State and, more                  the aggravation of the applicant’s occupational disease
specifically, an integrated plan in two protocols signed on 13                  and, if necessary, in the procedure for reopening a request
and 14 March 2000, under which the French Minister for                          that the disease be recognised as an occupational disease.
employment and solidarity undertook to procure additional
funding for those hospitals. According to the applicant, the
Commission has never stated its position on the statements
made in that complaint.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant alleges infringement of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty and of Council Regulation
(EC) No 659/19991 (1). It states that the period of 39 months             On 7 June 2000, the applicant, a former official of the
which has passed since the complaint was lodged exceeds the               Commission who was granted retirement on the ground of
reasonable time within which the Commission has to adopt a                total permanent invalidity as a result of an occupational
decision.                                                                 disease, submitted a request on the basis of an alleged
                                                                          aggravation of his occupational disease. By decision notified to
                                                                          the applicant by letter of 16 November 2000, the Commission
(1) 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC       suspended the procedure provided for by Article 22 of the
    Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.                                           Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties against the risk of accident and of occupational disease
                                                                          and decided not to take action on the applicant’s request. As a
                                                                          result of an action brought by the applicant, that decision of
                                                                          the Commission was annulled by the Court of First Instance
                                                                          by judgment of 26 February 2003 (1). On 10 March 2003, the
                                                                          Commission wrote to the applicant following the judgment
                                                                          delivered by the Court in order to transmit to him of the report
Action brought on 13 December 2003 by Arnaldo Lucac-                      of the doctor in charge of his case and to inform him that it
cioni against the Commission of the European Communi-                     could not grant his request because what was involved was a
                                ties                                      draft decision as referred to in Article 21 of the Rules.
                         (Case T-399/03)
                                                                          By the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment
                                                                          of the decision contained in the letter of 10 March 2003 and
                          (2004/C 47/59)                                  of the doctor’s report. In support of his claims, he alleges failure
                                                                          to comply with the judgment of the Court of 26 February 2003
                   (Language of the case: French)                         in Case T-212/01, breach of the rights of defence, material
                                                                          errors, and breach of the duty to state reasons.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          (1) Case T-212/01, published in OJ 2001 C 331, p. 25. Judgment
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Notice in OJ 2003 C 112, p. 31.
European Communities on 13 December 2003 by Arnaldo
Lucaccioni, residing in St-Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom),
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas and Karine
Delvolvé, lawyers.


title: Case C-84/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Rahmanian Koushkaki v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 — Articles 21(1), 32(1) and 35(6) — Procedures and conditions for issuing uniform visas — Obligation to issue a visa — Assessment of the risk of illegal immigration — Intention of the applicant to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for — Reasonable doubt — Discretion of the competent authorities)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Rahmanian Koushkaki v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-84/12) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 - Articles 21(1), 32(1) and 35(6) - Procedures and conditions for issuing uniform visas - Obligation to issue a visa - Assessment of the risk of illegal immigration - Intention of the applicant to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for - Reasonable doubt - Discretion of the competent authorities)
   2014/C 52/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rahmanian Koushkaki

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1), in particular Articles 21(1) and 32(1) — Procedures and conditions for granting visas — Right of an applicant for a visa who satisfies the entry conditions to be granted a visa — Assessment of the risk of illegal immigration — Discretion of the Member States concerned.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 23(4), 32(1) and 35(6) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a Member State cannot refuse, following the examination of an application for a uniform visa, to issue such a visa to an applicant unless one of the grounds for refusal of a visa listed in those provisions can be applied to that applicant. Those authorities have a wide discretion in the examination of that application so far as concerns the conditions for the application of those provisions and the assessment of the relevant facts, with a view to ascertaining whether one of those grounds for refusal can be applied to the applicant.

               2.

               Article 32(1) of Regulation No 810/2009, read in conjunction with Article 21(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation on the competent authorities of a Member State to issue a uniform visa is subject to the condition that there is no reasonable doubt that the applicant intends to leave the territory of the Member States before the expiry of the visa applied for, in the light of the general situation in the applicant’s country of residence and his individual characteristics, determined in the light of information provided by the applicant.

               3.

               Regulation No 810/2009 must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the conditions for the issue of a visa provided for by that regulation are satisfied, the competent authorities have the power to issue a uniform visa to the applicant, but does not state that they are obliged to issue that visa, in so far as such a provision can be interpreted in a way that is in conformity with Articles 23(4), 32(1) and 35(6) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 December 1998 in Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/25
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for                                     of 3 December 1998
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                      in Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia v Commission
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as                                     of the European Communities (1)
supplemented       by Commission         Regulation (EEC)                                  (Taxation of costs)
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended                                      (1999/C 71/48)
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.                        (Language of the case: English)
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                 In Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia, resident in
                                                                     Athens, represented by Linos Sissilianos, of the Athens
                                                                     Bar, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.                Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for taxation of
                                                                     costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                     of 21 March 1996 in Case T-230/94 Farrugia v
2. The defendants are to pay the costs.                              Commission [1996] ECR II-195 Ð the Court of First
                                                                     Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. Potocki,
(1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.                                              President, C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 December 1998, the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     The total amount of costs to be paid by the Commission
                                                                     to the applicant is fixed at GRD 1 200 000.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     (1) OJ C 101, 22.4.1995.
                     of 4 December 1998
in Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association and
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                      (Taxation of costs)
                        (1999/C 71/47)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 16 November 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97: Netherlands
In Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association,
                                                                     Antilles v Council of the European Union and
established at Wexham Springs (United Kingdom), Blue
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (1)
Circle Industries Plc, established in London, Castle
Cement Ltd, established at Peterborough (United                      (Disjoinder Ð Stay of proceedings Ð Disclaimer of
Kingdom), and Rugby Group Plc, established at Rugby                                            jurisdiction)
(United Kingdom), represented by David Lyon, of the Bar
                                                                                (1999/C 71/49)
of England and Wales, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Eric White) Ð application for
taxation of costs pursuant to the judgment of the Court of                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
First Instance of 6 July 1995 in Joined Cases T-447/93,
T-448/93 and T-449/93 AITEC and Others v Commission
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-163/97: Netherlands Antilles,
[1995] ECR II-1971 Ð the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A. Meij
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
on 4 December 1998, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber
follows:
                                                                     and Guus Houttuin) and Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by
The total amount of the costs recoverable by the                     Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis PeÂrez de Ayala Becerril)
applicants in Case T-448/93 is fixed in the sum of GBP               and Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and
90 000.                                                              Francesca Quadri); and T-179/97: Netherlands Antilles,
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
(1) OJ C 121, 13.5.1992.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 1998 in Case C-152/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Milano): Abruzzi Gas SpA (Agas) v. Amministrazione Tributaria di Milano (Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Merger of companies - Acquisition by a company which already holds all the securities of the companies acquired)

text:
C 397/8               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
                                                                         matters (OJ L 299, 31.12.1972), as amended by the
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                         Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of
                     of 27 October 1998                                  the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                         Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by
in Case C-51/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession
the Cour de Cassation): ReÂunion EuropeÂenne SA and                      of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of
Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the                    26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
          Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002 (1)                     Spain and the Portuguese Republic, but of matters
(Brussels Convention Ð Interpretation of Articles 5(1) and               relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the
(3) and 6 Ð Claim for compensation by the consignee or                   meaning of Article 5(3) of that Convention.
insurer of the goods on the basis of the bill of lading
against a defendant who did not issue the bill of lading
but is regarded by the plaintiff as the actual maritime             2. The place where the consignee of the goods, on
                            carrier)                                     completion of a transport operation by sea and then
                                                                         by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage
                        (98/C 397/12)                                    to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to
                                                                         determine the place where the harmful event
                                                                         occurred' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the
                (Language of the case: French)                           Convention of 28 September 1968, as interpreted by
                                                                         the Court.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  3. Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968
                                                                         must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant
                                                                         domiciled in a Contracting State cannot be sued in
                                                                         another Contracting State before a court seised of an
In Case C-51/97: reference to the Court from the Cour de
                                                                         action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a
Cassation (Court of Cassation) (France), under the
                                                                         Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
                                                                         indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection.
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters, for a preliminary ruling in the             (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
proceedings pending before that court between ReÂunion
EuropeÂenne      SA     and     Others     and     Spliethoff's
Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the Master of the vessel
Alblasgracht V002 Ð on the interpretation of Articles 5(1)
and (3) and 6 of the said Convention of 27 September
1968 (OJ L 299, 31.12.1972, p. 32), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ L 304,                                               (Sixth Chamber)
30.10.1978, p. 1 and Ð amended text Ð p. 77), by the                                      of 27 October 1998
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ L 388, 31.12.1982, p. 1) and by the           in Case C-152/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the                   the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Milano):
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ L 285,             Abruzzi Gas SpA (Agas) v. Amministrazione Tributaria di
1989, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                                           Milano (1)
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida (Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; G.                  (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Indirect taxes on the raising of
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given            capital Ð Merger of companies Ð Acquisition by a
a judgment on 27 October 1998, in which it has ruled:               company which already holds all the securities of the
                                                                                companies acquired)
                                                                                (98/C 397/13)
1. An action by which the consignee of goods found to
     be damaged on completion of a transport operation by
     sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has                          (Language of the case: Italian)
     been subrogated to his rights after compensating him,
     seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the
     bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not
     against the person who issued that document on his               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     headed paper but against the person whom the                             published in the European Court Reports)
     plaintiff considered to be the actual maritime carrier,
     falls within the scope not of matters relating to a
     contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the             In Case C-152/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
     Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and            of the EC Treaty from the Commissione Tributaria
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/9
Provinciale (Provincial Tax Court), Milan (Italy) for a           obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (First
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
court between Abruzzi Gas SpA (Agas) and                          of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La
Amministrazione Tributaria di Milano Ð on the                     Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July         a judgment on 27 October 1998, in which it:
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
(OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended
by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ
L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),             1. Declares that, failing to adopt within the period
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Second Chamber,               prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F.                   provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and                   93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                    minimum safety and health requirements for work on
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                  board fishing vessels (13th individual directive within
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 October 1998, in                 the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/
which it has ruled:                                                    EEC), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                       Article 13(1) thereof;
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning           2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not
preclude the levying of registration duty in respect of the       (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
acquisition of companies by a company which already
holds all the shares in the companies acquired.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 October 1998
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-185/96: Commission of the European
                                                                               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                     of 27 October 1998                                    Benefits for large families Ð Discrimination)
      in Case C-364/97: Commission of the European                                         (98/C 397/15)
                  Communities v. Ireland (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Non-transposition of
                    Directive 93/103/EC)                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
                         (98/C 397/14)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                            published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  In Case C-185/96: Commission of the European
In Case C-364/97: Commission of the European                      Communities (Agent: Maria Patakia) v. Hellenic Republic
Communities (Agent: Pieter Jan Kuijper) v. Ireland (Agent:        (Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Stamatina
Michael A. Buckley) Ð application for a declaration that,         Vodina) Ð application for a declaration that, by
by not adopting and/or by not communicating to the                precluding by regulation or administrative practice on the
Commission the laws, regulations and administrative               grounds of their nationality employed or self-employed
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/         workers from other Member States and the members of
103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum                 their families from being attributed large-family status for
safety and health requirements for work on board fishing          the purpose of the award of special benefits for such
vessels (13th individual directive within the meaning of          families and from being awarded family allowances, the
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 307,                 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
13.12.1993, p. 1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its               Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Council


title: Case T-689/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/21

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Bilbaina de Alquitranes and Others v Commission
   (Case T-689/13)
   2014/C 85/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA (Luchana-Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain); Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain); Koppers Denmark A/S (Nyborg, Denmark); Koppers UK Ltd (Scunthorpe, United Kingdom); Koppers Netherlands BV (Uithoorn, Netherlands); Rütgers basic aromatics GmbH (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Poland); Bawtry Carbon International Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom); Grupo Ferroatlántica, SA (Madrid, Spain); SGL Carbon GmbH (Meitingen, Germany); SGL Carbon GmbH (Bad Goisern am Hallstättersee, Austria); SGL Carbon (Passy, France); SGL Carbon, SA (La Coruña, Spain); SGL Carbon Polska S.A. (Racibórz, Poland); and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the Application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul the Contested Act as far as it classifies CTPHT as H400 and H410;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (‘the CLP Regulation’) (OJ L 261, p. 5), insofar as it classifies pitch, coal tar, high temp CAS Number 65996-93-2 (‘CTPHT’) as Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) (the ‘Contested Act’).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it infringes the REACH and CLP provisions regarding classification of substances as toxic for the aquatic environment and studies which must be accepted for this purpose, as well as the principle of equal treatment, in so far as it rejected studies performed according to REACH and OECD guidelines and it required testing without any accepted standardised method.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on a manifest error of assessment since it failed to take into consideration the inert inherent properties of CTPHT which have notably a significant impact on UV light testing and the application of the summation method; it established M-factors for PAH constituents without a proper assessment of the studies relied upon and it rejected information provided by the Applicants without valid justification.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful because it breached the EU law principles of transparency and right of defence.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  23 September 2005  in Case C-357/04 P: Antonio Andolfi v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — JOP Programme — Project to set up a joint Italo-Romanian company — Withdrawal of financial aid initially granted — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 23 September 2005
   in Case C-357/04 P: Antonio Andolfi v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - JOP Programme - Project to set up a joint Italo-Romanian company - Withdrawal of financial aid initially granted - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2006/C 60/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-357/04 P: APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 17 August 2004, by Antonio Andolfi, residing in Rome (Italy), (Avvocato: S. Amato) the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Montaguti), assisted by Avvocato: A. Dal Ferro), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 23 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Andolfi shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.


title: Case T-296/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission (Interim relief — Competition — Request for information — Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission
   (Case T-296/11 R)
   (Interim relief - Competition - Request for information - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 282/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cementos Portland Valderrivas, SA (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, C. Urraca Caviedes and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 30 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 — Cement and related products)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-249/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 12 May 2017 — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 12 May 2017 — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners
   (Case C-249/17)
   (2017/C 221/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

      Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a future intention to provide management services to a takeover target, in the event that the takeover is successful, be sufficient to establish that the potential acquirer is engaged in economic activity for the purposes of Art. 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) so that VAT charged to the potential acquirer on goods or services provided for the purposes of seeking to progress the relevant acquisition can potentially be considered as VAT on an input to the intended economic activity of providing such management services; and

               2.

               Can there be a sufficient ‘direct and immediate link’, as identified as a requirement by the CJEU in Cibo (2), between professional services rendered in the context of such a potential takeover and output, being the potential provision of management to the acquisition target in the event that the takeover is successful, so as to permit a deduction to be made in respect of the VAT payable on those professional services?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Judgment of 27 September 2001, Cibo Participations SA v Directeur régional des impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais, C-16/00, EU:C:2001:495.