title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 5 December 1996 in Joined Cases C-174/96 P and C-175/96 P Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
22 . 2 . 97             EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/9
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                      the Order was suspended with effect from 19 October
                         ( Fourth Chamber )                               1983 , he was authorized to conduct proceedings in his
                                                                          own name by decision of 23 February 1996 .
                      of 28 November 1996
in Case C- 11 9/96 P Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European                      By orders of 5 December 1996 the Court ( Fifth Chamber )
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                      ordered as follows :
                            Conditions (')
                                                                          1 . The appeals of Mr Orlando Lopes are inadmissible.
(Appeal — Officials — Employees of the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
                                                                          2 . The cases shall he removed from the register of the
Conditions — Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an
                                                                               Court of Justice.
                         internal candidate)
                             ( 97/C 54/ 15 )                              (') ECR-SC 1996 II , p . 185 and p . 239 .
                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 December 1996 by J. Antonissen
                                                                          against the order of the President of the Court of First
In Case C-l 19/96 P: Susan Ryan-Sheridan, an employee of                  Instance of the European Communities of 29 November
the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living                     1996 in Case T-l 79/96 R between, on the one hand, J.
and Working Conditions, represented by Marc-Albert                        Antonissen and, on the other hand, the Council of the
Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in                  European Union and the Commission of the European
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn , 21 Rue de                                               Communities
Nassau , — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                                ( Case C-393 /96 P1R1 )
First Instance (Third Chamber ) of 15 February 1996 in
Case T-589/93 Ryan-Sheridan v. European Foundation for                                               ( 97/C 54/ 17 )
the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
[ 1996 ] ECR-SC 11-0000 , seeking to have that judgment set               An appeal against the order of the President of the Court
aside, the other party to the proceedings being European                  of First Instance of the European Communities of
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                      29 November 1996 in Case T-l 79/96 R between , on the
Conditions ( Agents : Clive Purkiss, Terry Sheehan and                    one hand, J. Antonissen and , on the other hand, the
Denis     Waelbroeck ),        the  Court    ( Fourth    Chamber ),       Council of the European Union and the Commission of
composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the Chamber,                      the European Communities was brought before the Court
P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm , Judges;                of Justice of the European Communities on 5 December
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made                   1996 by J. Antonissen, represented by PL . H. Pijnacker
an order on 28 November 1996 , the operative part of                      Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
which is as follows :
                                                                          of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                              Guillaume .
2 . The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.                            The appellant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                          — set aside the order of the President of the Court of
                                                                               First Instance of 29 November 1996 in Case T-179/
                                                                               96 R,
                                                                          — refer the case back to ( the President of) the Court of
                                                                               First Instance for judgment, and
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                       of 5 December 1996
                                                                          — order the Council and the Commission to pay the
                                                                               costs .
in Joined Cases C-174/96 P and C-175/96 P Orlando
   Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European Communities                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 54/ 16 )
                                                                          — Breach of Article 186 of the EC Treaty and of the
                                                                               obligation to state reasons in that the President ruled,
Appeals against the judgments delivered on 29 February                         on incomprehensible and incorrect grounds, that the
1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European                            interim measures sought in part corresponded exactly
Communities in Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94 Lopes v.                            to the relief sought in the main application and in part
Court of Justice brought on 6 May 1996 ('), signed only                        amounted to a claim for payment in advance of
by Mr Orlando Lopes, accompanied by a certificate of the                       compensation for future and uncertain damage, and
General Council of the Order of Advocates of Portugal,                         thus did not constitute interim measures within the
according to which , although his entry in the register of                     meaning of Article 186 of the EC Treaty,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that court of 27 August 1998 in the case of Finanzamt Goslar v. Brigitte Breitsohl (Case C-400/98) (1999/C 1/14)

text:
C 1/8                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.1.1999
       the election or claim, relying upon the primacy and                 services is to be concluded, where such services exceed
       direct effect of the provisions of Community law?                   the threshold laid down by the relevant directives.
                                                                      (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC, (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
(1) Application of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,         (2) Pubblica Amministrazione (Public authority).
    and in particular of the United Kingdom tax rules relating to
    the payments of dividends by the United Kingdom resident
    companies whose parent companies are resident in other
    Member States.
(2) Case C-66/95.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that
                                                                      court of 27 August 1998 in the case of Finanzamt Goslar
                                                                                v. Brigitte Breitsohl
                                                                                (Case C-400/98)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                                             (1999/C 1/14)
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Milan, by
order of that court of 11 June 1998, in the case of Ordine
degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi and Piero            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
de Angelis, Architect, v. Comune di Milano, SocietaÁ                  European       Communities        by     an   order    of     the
Pirelli, Milano Centrale Servizi SpA and Ente Autonomo                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
                         Teatro alla Scala                            1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                      9 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                         (Case C-399/98)                              Finanzamt Goslar v. Brigitte Breitsohl on the following
                                                                      questions:
                          (1999/C 1/13)
                                                                      1. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities (judgment in Case
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     C-110/94 (1) INZO), even the very first investment
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                          expenditure incurred for the purposes of a business
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Milan,                          may be regarded as an economic activity within the
(Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy) of 11 June                    meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                          77/388/EEC (2). The tax authority has to take account
9 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                   of the business person's declared intention in this
Ordine degli Architetti delle Province di Milano e Lodi                    regard. The status of taxable person accorded on that
and Piero de Angelis, Architect, v. Comune di Milano,                      basis cannot, in principle, be withdrawn retroactively
SocietaÁ Pirelli, Milano Centrale Servizi SpA and Ente                     on account of certain events having or having not
Autonomo Teatro alla Scala, on the following questions:                    occurred (principle of legal certainty). This also applies
                                                                           to the deductions relating to the investment
                                                                           transactions.
1. Whether or not the State and regional legislation                       According to those principles, is the right to deduct
     which allows a builder (who holds a building permit                   tax (Article 17 of Directive 77/388/EEC) on setting
     or approved development plan) to carry out                            up' expenditure to be accorded on the basis of the
     development works directly, in total or partial                       intention to take up economic activity leading to
     discharge of the amount owed (Article 11 of Law                       taxable transactions even where the revenue authority
     No 10/77, Articles 28 and 31 of Law No 1150 of                        is already aware, when the first tax assessment is
     17 August 1942, Articles 8 and 12 of Law No 60 of                     made, that the intended economic activity leading to
     the Lombardy Region of 5 December 1977), is                           taxable transactions was not actually taken up?
     contrary to Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1), in the
     light of the strict tendering principles imposed on the
     Member States by Community law in relation to all                If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
     public works of a value of ECU 5 million or more.
                                                                      2. In the case of a supply of buildings or parts thereof
                                                                           and of the land on which they stand, can the option
                                                                           for taxation be restricted to the buildings and parts
2. Whether, notwithstanding the principles concerning
                                                                           thereof?
     tendering referred to above, agreements between the
     administration and a private person (generally allowed
     by Article 11 of Law No 241 of 7 August 1990) may                (1) [1996] ECR I-857.
     be regarded as compatible with Community law in                  (2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
     areas in which the procedure is that the P.A. (2)
     chooses a party with whom a contract for such


title: Case T-161/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Hoechst v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market sharing and price-fixing — Attributability of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Cooperation — Aggravating circumstances — Repeated infringement — Access to the file — Report of the Hearing Officer — Order to bring the infringement to an end)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Hoechst v Commission
   (Case T-161/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for monochloroacetic acid - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market sharing and price-fixing - Attributability of the infringement - Fines - Proportionality - Cooperation - Aggravating circumstances - Repeated infringement - Access to the file - Report of the Hearing Officer - Order to bring the infringement to an end)
   2009/C 282/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by M. Klusmann and U. Itzen, and subsequently by M. Klusmann, U. Itzen and S. Thomas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by A. Bouquet, F. Amato and M. Schneider, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and M. Kellerbauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA) and, in the alternative, application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Hoechst AG in Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA) at EUR 66 627 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-273/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/81/EC — Atmospheric pollutants — Failure to communicate programmes for the reduction of emissions, national emission inventories and annual projections for the year 2010)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/22

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-273/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/81/EC - Atmospheric pollutants - Failure to communicate programmes for the reduction of emissions, national emission inventories and annual projections for the year 2010)
   (2009/C 44/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to draw up and communicate, within the prescribed time-limits, the documents provided for in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, within the prescribed time-limit, the programmes, inventories and annual projections for the year 2010 relating to the progressive reduction of its emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants;

               2.

               orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-145/04: Actionbrought on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spainagainst the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/43

         Action brought on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
   (Case C-145/04)
   (2004/C 106/74)
   An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by enacting the ‘European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003’, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 189, 190, 17 and 19 of the EC Treaty, as well as the 1976 Act concerning the Election of the Representatives of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage, annexed to the Council Decision of 20 September 1976 - 76/787/ECSC, EEE, EURATOM - on direct elections to the European Parliament (1) and

               —

               order the United Kingdom to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The legal grounds on which this application relies are the following:

               I.

               Violation of articles 189, 190 17 and 19 of the EC Treaty, since

                           (a)

                           The European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 (hereinafter EPRA 2003) recognizes the right to vote in the elections to the European Parliament to persons who are not nationals of a Member State (i.e. the qualifying Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar) and, therefore, do not have the status of citizens of the Union. In the Kingdom of Spain's view there is a clear link between the citizenship of the Union and the right to vote and stand in European parliamentary elections.

                           (b)

                           The right to vote in European parliamentary elections is regulated in article 190 EC. Therefore, the basis regulation of this right is a Community competence. The only persons who may exercise this right are the citizens of the Union, because article 190 EC should be interpreted systematically with articles 17 and 19 EC.

                           (c)

                           The term ‘peoples of the States’ used in articles 189 and 190 EC has to be interpreted as meaning only nationals of the Member States, and does not include non-EU nationals, even if they reside in a territory to which Community law applies.

                           (d)

                           Granting the right to vote and stand in the elections to the European Parliament to persons who are not Union citizens implies a breach of the Union citizenship, as certain persons would enjoy the right to vote and stand for the European Parliament, but would not possess the other rights of Union citizenship.

                           (e)

                           Accepting Member States' unilateral competence in conferring the right to vote and stand in European parliamentary elections would open the door to similar claims in other Member States.

               II.

               Violation of the 1976 Act, since
               the 1976 Act excludes Gibraltar from its objective sphere of application when regulating European parliamentary elections. This exclusion is consistent with the status of Gibraltar, according to International and Community law.
               The United Kingdom accepted in its Statement of 18 February 2004 to enable the Gibraltar electorate to vote in elections to the European Parliament as part of and on the same terms as the electorate of an existing United Kingdom constituency.
               Nevertheless the EPRA 2003 includes the territory of Gibraltar (not its electorate) in an existing electoral region in the United Kingdom. This combined electoral region violates the 1976 Act and the above mentioned Statement.

      (1)  OJ L 278, 08.10.1976, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 7 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-58/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/ 13
       3 . Council , Directive 93/114/EC ( 3 ) of 14 December               Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
           1993      amending            Directive    70/524/EEC (4)        down in directives for their transposition . That time-limit
           concerning additives in feedingstuffs,                           expired on 13 September 1994 without the Italian
                                                                            Republic having brought into force the necessary
       and/or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the              provisions in order to comply with the Directive referred
       French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 to in the Commission's application.
       under Article 20 of Directive 93/53/EEC, Article 8 of
       Directive 93/ 113/EC and Article 2 of Directive 93/114/              H OJ No L 247, 5 . 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .
       EC and of the EC Treaty;
( b) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                            Appeal brought on 11 February 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen
                                                                            against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                    the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
relied on in Case C-56/97 (s ); the time-limits expired on
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-130/95 between L. B.
1 January 1994 (Directive 93/53/EEC ), 1 October 1994
(Directive 93/113/EC and Directive 93/114/EC) and                           Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
1 January 1995 (Article 7 of Directive 93/113/EC )
respectively.                                                                                ( Case C-60/97 P)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/24 )
(1 )  OJ  No L 175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 23 .
(2 )  OJ  No L 334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 17.
(3)   OJ  No L 334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 24 .                              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
(4)   OJ  No L 270,  14 . 12 . 1970, p . 1 .                                 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
(5 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal.                                  of the European Communities in Case T-130/95 between
                                                                            L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                            the European Communities on 11 February 1997 by L. B.
                                                                             Rasmussen, represented by Carlo Revoldini, with an
                                                                             address for service in Luxembourg at 180, route de
Action brought on 7 February 1997 by the Commission of                       Longwy.
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                              ( Case C-58/97 )                               The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                ( 97/C 108/23 )
                                                                             — quash the judgment appealed against in its entirety,
                                                                                except as to the costs of the proceedings,
 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         and as should have been held at first instance :
 7 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal                             — annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
 Adviser, and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting                      the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion
 as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                         procedure,
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
 Kirchberg.                                                                  — annul the decision of the Commission to promote to
                                                                                Grade A 4 the officials on the list published in
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                    Administrative     Information        Bulletin No   859   of
                                                                                8 September 1994,
  1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and/or notify the
        laws, regulations or administrative provisions                       — order the Commission to pay damages in respect of
        necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/75/EEC                      the non-material harm suffered,
        of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum
        requirements for vessels bound for or leaving                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
        Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting                       proceedings in any event.
        goods ('), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
        obligations under that Directive and the EC Treaty;                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                           Defective and inadequate reasoning of the contested
                                                                              judgment which failed to deal with the applicant's
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         arguments and claims (] ).
  Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                    H OJ No C 208 , 17 . 8 . 1995 , p . 35 .
  directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
  upon each Member State to which it is addressed,


title: Case C-73/03: Action brought on 19 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/20                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          26.4.2003
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission                             —     Articles 14 to 16: there are no provisions dealing
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                 with access to the system. The reference to prohib-
                           lic of Germany                                              itions under competition law is not sufficient as
                                                                                these do not contain any rules on access;
                           (Case C-64/03)                                        —     Articles 12 and 13: there are no rules under the laws
                                                                                specifically governing natural gas which deal with
                                                                                the unbundling of the accounts of integrated natural
                          (2003/C 101/33)                                              gas undertakings;
                                                                           —     The Federal Republic of Germany has failed adequately to
                                                                                transpose:
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            —     Article 2: defining provisions contained in a measure
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                           of Community law must, inasmuch as they are —
ties on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European                             as here — necessary for the proper application of
Communities, represented by Jürgen Grunwald, Legal Adviser                             the Community provisions by national bodies, be
to the Commission of the European Communities, and Hans                                correctly transposed in national law;
Støvlbæk, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
European Communities, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                                —     Articles 7(2) and 10(2): the general competition
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                                rules under national law apply only to undertakings
Cruz, of the European Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                                in a dominant market position and for that reason
Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                                do not constitute an adequate transposition of the
                                                                                prohibition of discrimination;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      —     Article 15(1) in conjunction with Article 17(1):
                                                                                unlike the position in the electricity sector, German
1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                           law does not provide for an obligation to state
                                                                                reasons in the event of refusal to grant access to the
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/30/EC ( 1) of the European                              system;
      Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concern-
      ing common rules for the internal market in natural gas,                   —     Article 18: no criteria governing the designation of
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                         eligible customers have been published or notified
      obligations under Article 29 of that directive;                                  to the Commission;
                                                                                —     Article 21(2): the arbitration authority provided for
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs                           in Article 21(2) has not been designated.
      of the proceedings.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the period for transposition of Directive 98/30/EC
expired on 10 August 2000, the Federal Republic of Germany
has thus far failed to transpose at all or failed to transpose
adequately a number of provisions of that directive.                       Action brought on 19 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
—     The Federal Republic of Germany has failed totally to
      transpose:
                                                                                (Case C-73/03)
      —     Article 5 in conjunction with Articles 7(3) and 10(3):
            it is clear that there have been no notifiable and                                       (2003/C 101/34)
            technically verifiable ‘technical rules establishing
            the minimum technical design and operational
            requirements’ for the ‘connection to the system of
            LNG facilities, storage facilities, other transmission         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            or distribution systems, and direct lines’. At any rate,       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
            no such technical rules have been notified to the              Communities on 19 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,
            Commission, nor is the Commission aware of any                 represented by S. Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, with
            such rules;                                                    an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       much larger amount, against which the Commission had
                                                                                publicly advised but which was adopted in other Member
                                                                                States such as France, Germany or Italy. It can in no
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 11 December                              way be maintained that Spanish operators enjoyed an
      2002 ( 1), in so far as it finds that the subsidising of loans              economic advantage to which those of other Member
      and guarantees for owners of agricultural holdings and                      States did not have access.
      the extension of tax benefits to the transfer of agricultural
      land and holdings constitute State aid incompatible with
      the Treaty;                                                          —      (In the alternative) If State aid is found to exist, it is
                                                                                compatible with the common market in the light of
                                                                                Article 87(2)(b) EC: neither the objective nor the result of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      the alleged aid was to cover loss suffered by the farmer:
                                                                                the intention was to make it easier for him to obtain a
                                                                                loan from financial institutions so that the loans would
                                                                                make up for the lack of liquidity brought about by the
                                                                                disproportionate increase in costs caused by the steep
                                                                                rises in fuel prices. If, following the Commission’s rec-
                                                                                ommendation not to reduce the special tax on fuel oils
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   or value added tax, no alternative measures were adopted,
                                                                                Spanish farmers would become less competitive in their
                                                                                trade by comparison with States which implemented
                                                                                permitted, although not recommended, tax reductions.
(The extension of certain tax benefits to transfers of land)               —      (In the alternative) Compatibility of the measures in the
                                                                                light of Article 87(3)(c) EC.
—     This does not constitute State aid since certain undertak-
      ings or the production of certain goods are not specifically
      favoured: the measure entails a lower tax burden for the             (1 ) Relating to measures taken by Spain to support agriculture
      seller of the land and has an impact on the owner (farmer)                following the fuel price increase.
      purchasing land: not as to the amount but as to the
      greater availability of land for sale because of the lower
      capital gains tax charge for the seller.
—     (in the alternative) The aid is compatible with the
      Community guidelines for State aid in the agricultural
      sector: A farmer who invests in the acquisition of land,
      and is the owner of a priority holding, by definition
      satisfies the requirements set out in point 4.1 of the
      Community guidelines as regards the economic viability
      of the holding and the occupational skill required for the           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
      grant of structural aid cofinanced by the EU under the               by order of that Court of 14 February 2003 in the case of
      Regulation on improving the efficiency of agricultural               SmithKline Beecham plc against Lægemiddelstyrelsen;
      structures in force at the material time.                                    interveners being Synthon BV and Genthon BV
                                                                                (Case C-74/03)
(The subsidising of loans and guarantees for owners of
agricultural holdings                                                                                (2003/C 101/35)
—     This does not constitute State aid within the meaning of
      Article 87 EC since it does not affect trade between
      Member States: The Spanish measure entailing the sub-
      sidising of loans was actually symbolic in the face of a             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      sector which felt that its economic viability was seriously          European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
      threatened by the exceptional fuel-price increase. It is             Regional Court) of 14 February 2003, received at the Court
      paradoxical that a palliative measure of such a slight               Registry on 19 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      unitary significance should give rise to a decision of               case of SmithKline Beecham plc against Lægemiddelstyrelsen
      incompatibility with the common market when it was                   (Danish Medicinal Products Administration); interveners being
      adopted as an alternative to a reduction in taxes of a               Synthon BV and Genthon BV on the following questions:


title: Case T-252/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014  — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/30

         Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)
   (Case T-252/14)
   2014/C 253/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Chemo Ibérica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M.I. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 936/2013-4, and accordingly order that Community trade mark No 1 0 2 48  367‘EXELTIS’ should be granted in relation to Class 5 of the International Classification;

               —

               order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Chemo Ibérica, SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EXELTIS’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 48  367

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Novartis AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EXELON’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-95/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2008 — Aventis Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (Prazol) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PRAZOL — Earlier national word mark PREZAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2008 — Aventis Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (Prazol)
   (Case T-95/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PRAZOL - Earlier national word mark PREZAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 313/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aventis Pharma SA (Antony, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by S. Laitinen, and subsequently by Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Nycomed GmbH, formerly Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: A. Ferchland, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Altana Pharma AG and Aventis Pharma SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aventis Pharma SA;

               3.

               Orders Nycomed GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-660/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Council of the European Union v European Commission (Action for annulment — The European Union’s external relations — Access by the Swiss Confederation to the internal market — The Swiss Confederation’s financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in an enlarged Union — Memorandum of Understanding on a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the Member States which acceded to the Union as a result of the 2004 enlargement — Enlargement of the Union to include the Republic of Croatia — Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation for the Republic of Croatia — Addendum signed by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union without the prior approval of the Council of the European Union — Powers — Article 13(2), Article 16(1) and (6) and Article 17(1) TEU — Principles of allocation of powers, institutional balance and sincere cooperation)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 July 2016 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-660/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - The European Union’s external relations - Access by the Swiss Confederation to the internal market - The Swiss Confederation’s financial contribution to economic and social cohesion in an enlarged Union - Memorandum of Understanding on a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the Member States which acceded to the Union as a result of the 2004 enlargement - Enlargement of the Union to include the Republic of Croatia - Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning a financial contribution by the Swiss Confederation for the Republic of Croatia - Addendum signed by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union without the prior approval of the Council of the European Union - Powers - Article 13(2), Article 16(1) and (6) and Article 17(1) TEU - Principles of allocation of powers, institutional balance and sincere cooperation))
   (2016/C 350/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado, P. Mahnič and E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, E. Ruffer and M. Hedvábná, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and B. Beutler, Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala and M. Tassopoulou, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Fize and N. Rouam, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and J. Nasutavičienėè, Agents), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Szima, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. Gijzen and M.Noort, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, C. Brodie, S. Behzadi-Spencer and E. Jenkinson, Agents, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission, (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Commission Decision C(2013) 6355 final until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time, of a new decision to replace it;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 6 October 1997 in Case C-55/97 P: Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de Soie Naturelle (AIUFFASS), a company under Belgian law, Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), a company under English law, against Commission of the European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal - Article 92 (3) (a) and (c) of the EC Treaty - Textiles - Manifest error of assessment - Overcapacity - Admissibility)

text:
C 357/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 11 . 97
award of public works contracts must be interpreted as                  1 . The appeal is dismissed.
precluding contracting authorities from rejecting
abnormally low tenders after 31 December 1992 without
following the verification procedure provided for in the                2 . The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
first subparagraph of that provision.
                                                                        (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
(') OJ C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 15 September 1997 by Smanor SA,
                                                                        Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud against the order
                                                                        made on 3 July 1997 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                        of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                        T-201/96 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert
                           ( First Chamber)                             Ségaud and Monique Ségaud and, on the other,
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                         of 6 October 1997                                                         ( Case C-3 17/97 P )
in Case C-55 /97 P: Association Internationale des Utilisa                                            ( 97/C 357/22 )
teurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de
Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), a company under Belgian law,
Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), a company                  An appeal against the order made on 3 July 1997 by the
under English law, against Commission of the European                   Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                   European Communities in Case T-201/96 between, on the
                Britain and Northern Ireland (')                        one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique
                                                                        Ségaud and, on the other, Commission of the European
 (Appeal — Article 92 (3) (a) and (c) of the EC Treaty —                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
 Textiles — Manifest error of assessment — Overcapacity                 the European Communities on 15 September 1997 by
                          — Admissibility)                              Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud,
                                                                        represented by Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar,
                             ( 97/C 357/21 )                            with an address for service at 7/9 Rue du General de
                                                                        Larminat, Créteil .
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
                                                                        order appealed against and, ruling afresh, grant the
                                                                        applications originally made and order the Commission to
                                                                        pay all the costs.
 In Case C-55/97 P, Association Internationale des Utilisa
 teurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), a company under Belgian law,
 established in Gent ( Belgium ), Apparel , Knitting &
 Textiles Alliance ( AKT), a company under English law,                  Failure to comply with secondary Community law: in the
 established in London, represented by Michel Waelbroeck,               circumstances of the case, faced with a failure to act as
 Jules Stuyck and Olivier Spletdoorn, of the Brussels Bar,               persistent in duration as inexplicable in motivation,
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        directly giving rise to a spiralling increase in the damage
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt —                     suffered, the Court of First Instance could not, without
 appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance              failing in its duty to take all the relevant aspects of the
 of the European Communities ( Fifth Chamber, Extended                   case into consideration, acknowledge that the Commission
 Composition ) in Case T-380/94 AIUFFASS and AKT v.                      enjoyed the discretion recognized in Case C-247/8 7 Star
 Commission [ 1996 ] ECR 11-2169, seeking the annulment                  Fruit v. Commission ('), which is totally irrelevant in
 of that judgment, the other party to the proceedings being :            this case because it referred to factual circumstances
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Xavier                  completely unrelated to the legal consequences entailed by
 Lewis ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain                   the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 298/87
 and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll, assisted                  Smanor ( 2 ).
 by Richard Plender and Stephen Morris ) — the Court
 ( First Chamber ), composed of L. Sevón, President of                   (') [ 1989 ] ECR, p . 291 .
 the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet                            ( 2 ) [ 1988 ] ECR, p . 4489 .
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 6 October 1997, the
 operative part of which is as follows :


C 118/28              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-506/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-479/98 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/70)                                                   (2001/C 118/73)
By order of 22 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 4 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-506/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-479/98: Kingdom of Spain v
European Communities v Portugal.                                    Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-189/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-209/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/71)                                                   (2001/C 118/74)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-189/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-209/99: (reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Spain.                                       ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn): Birgit Frings v Blenderm-
                                                                    ann GmbH.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-468/99 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-312/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/72)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/75)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-468/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain              from the register of Case C-312/99: Commission of the
and Northern Ireland.                                               European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.


               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/1

         2011/C 13/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 346, 18.12.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 328, 4.12.2010

      OJ C 317, 20.11.2010

      OJ C 301, 6.11.2010

      OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

      OJ C 274, 9.10.2010

      OJ C 260, 25.9.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-469/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-469/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 205/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted or notified, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.


title: Case C-56/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of  31 January 2006  in Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 31 January 2006 in Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-56/06)
   (2006/C 86/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of 31 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH and Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Duisburg on the following question:
   Do the matching operations described in more detail in the present order go beyond simple operations of matching for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Protocol 4 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/97 of the Association Council, Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, of 30 June 1997? (1)

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 221, p. 1.


title: Case C-591/12 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2012 by Bimbo, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-569/10: Bimbo, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/6

         Appeal brought on 10 December 2012 by Bimbo, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-569/10: Bimbo, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-591/12 P)
   2013/C 55/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bimbo, SA (represented by: C. Prat, abogado, R. Ciullo, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Panrico SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) dated 10 October 2012, in Case T-569/10

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4), since it infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009 (1)

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009.
   In particular, the appellant submits that the General Court:

               (a)

               erred in law, in so far as it attributed an independent distinctive role to the element DOUGHNUTS solely based on the finding that it had an alleged average distinctive role and was wholly meaningless to the average Spanish consumer and, as a consequence, did not form a unitary whole or a logical unit with the component BIMBO, without explaining the reasons why the average distinctive character of the component DOGHNUTS or the absence of a meaning for it would automatically confer on that component an independent distinctive character in the perception of the relevant public; and

               (b)

               erred in law, in so far as it based the finding that there was a likelihood of confusion, in essence, on the assumption that the element DOUGHNUTS has an independent distinctive role, without taking into account all the factors specific to the case, in particular, the fact that the first component of the composite trade mark was a trade mark with a reputation. In other words, the General Court interpreted the Medion doctrine as implying that a finding of an independent distinctive role in one of the components of a composite sign renders it unnecessary, in the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion, to analyse all or some the other factors specific to the case, contrary to the doctrine of the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case T-312/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — Byk-Cera (CERATIX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CERATIX — Earlier national word mark CERATOFIX — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Süd-Chemie v OHIM — Byk-Cera (CERATIX)
   (Case T-312/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CERATIX - Earlier national word mark CERATOFIX - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Süd-Chemie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: Baron W. von der Osten-Sacken and A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Byk-Cera BV (Deventer, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Kroher and A. Hettenkofer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Süd-Chemie AG and Byk-Cera BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Süd-Chemie AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-86/11: Action brought on 14 February 2011 — Bamba v Council

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/11

         Action brought on 14 February 2011 — Bamba v Council
   (Case T-86/11)
   2011/C 95/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nadiany Bamba (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: P. Haïk, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   declare Mrs Nadiany BAMBA’s action admissible;

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire to the extent that it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), in that the contested measures:

                           do not provide for a procedure allowing the applicant to be guaranteed effective exercise of his rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to the benefit of a procedure allowing her to effectively request her removal from the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures;

                           at no time provide for the communication of detailed reasons for the inclusion on the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures;

                           at no time provide for the interested person to be notified of the methods and time-limits of actions against the decision to include on the list.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging an infringement of the fundamental right to respect for property enshrined in Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


title: Case C-319/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 23 August 2000 in the appeal concerning Merkurbau-Grundstücksverwertungs GmbH & Co KG, Manfred Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg

text:
21.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 302/21
2.    If not, is the manner in which these provisions are                sation — United Civil Chambers) of 9 June 2000, which was
      interpreted and applied in practice by the Conseil Supé-           received at the Court Registry on 11 September 2000, for a
      rieur de l’Audiovisuel contrary to Article 59 of the EC            preliminary ruling in the case of Fonderie Officine Meecaniche
      Treaty (now Article 49 EC) insofar as they prevent or              Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinen-
      restrict (a) the advertising of alcoholic drinks at sporting       fabrik GmbH on the following question:
      events taking place in Member States other than France
      when the events are to be televised in France and (b) the
      broadcasting in France of sporting events taking place in          Does an action against a defendant for pre-contractual liability
      other Member States at which there is advertising of               fall within the scope of matters relating to delict or quasi-delict
      alcoholic beverages?                                               (Article 5(3)? If not, does it fall within the scope of matters
                                                                         relating to a contract (Article 5(1) (1)? If it does, what is ‘the
                                                                         obligation in question’? Otherwise, is the general criterion of
                                                                         ‘domicile of the defendant’ the only criterion applicable?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   (1) Article 5(1) and (3) of the Brussels Convention 1968 on Jurisdic-
                                                                             tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
                                                                             Matters (consolidated version) (OJ 1998 C 27, p. 1).
23 August 2000 in the appeal concerning Merkurbau-
Grundstücksverwertungs GmbH & Co KG, Manfred
Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salz-
                                burg
                         (Case C-319/00)
                         (2000/C 302/40)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-525/99 (1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                                          (2000/C 302/42)
tungssenat Salzburg of 23 August 2000, received at the Court
Registry on 28 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
the appeal concerning Merkurbau-Grundstücksverwertungs                   By order of 3 April 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
GmbH & Co KG, Manfred Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des                the register of Case C-525/99 (Reference for a preliminary
Landes Salzburg on the following question:                               ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                                                                         Neubau GmbH and Herbert Bogensberger.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
Transfer law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-38/00 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/43)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile by order of that                    By order of 10 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
court of 9 June 2000 in the case of Fonderie Officine                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Meccaniche Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner                       the register of Case C-38/00 (Reference for a preliminary
                  Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH                             ruling from the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, North Western
                                                                         Traffic Area): Public enquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus
                         (Case C-334/00)                                 Joseph, trading under the name of Woodcroft Haulage.
                         (2000/C 302/41)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile (Supreme Court of Cas-


title: Case T-645/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Heath v ECB (Appeal — Civil Service Tribunal — Employees of the ECB — Pensions — Annual increase — Rate of increase for 2010 — Retroactivity — Right to collective bargaining)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/74

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — Heath v ECB
   (Case T-645/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service Tribunal - Employees of the ECB - Pensions - Annual increase - Rate of increase for 2010 - Retroactivity - Right to collective bargaining)
   2013/C 225/165
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Micheal Heath (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented: initially by P. Embley and E. Carlini, subsequently by E. Carlini and M. Lópex Torres, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) in Case F-121/10 Heath v BCE, judgment of 29 September 2011, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Michael Heath to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB) in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-360/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 — Community trade mark — Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — International jurisdiction relating to infringement — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred — Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV
   (Case C-360/12) (1)

   ((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 - Community trade mark - Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - International jurisdiction relating to infringement - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred - Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act))
   2014/C 253/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH

      Defendant: First Note Perfumes NV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Community trade mark — International jurisdiction in matters of infringement — Act committed in one Member State consisting of assistance in an infringement carried out in the territory of a second Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed’ in Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one Member State, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another Member State, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the Member State where the court seised is situated;

               2.

               Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of unlawful comparative advertising or unfair imitation of a sign protected by a Community trade mark, prohibited by the law against unfair competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) of the Member State in which the court seised is situated, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place where the event giving rise to the damage resulting from the infringement of that law occurred, for a court in that Member State where the presumed perpetrator who is sued there did not himself act there. By contrast, in such a case, that provision does allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place of occurrence of damage, to hear an action for damages based on that national law brought against a person established in another Member State and who is alleged to have committed, in that State, an act which caused or may cause damage within the jurisdiction of that court.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2003 in Case T-46/03 R: Leali SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Competition — Payment of fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)

text:
24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/35
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               Coberco Dairy Foods Holding N.V., established in Meppel
                            INSTANCE                                       (Netherlands), represented by Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk.
                       of 20 October 2003
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case T-46/03 R: Leali SpA v Commission of the
                    European Communities
                                                                           1)    annul Article 2 of Commission Decision of 17 February
(Application for interim measures — Competition — Pay-                           2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
    ment of fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)                              for international financing of activities (2003/515/EC) in
                                                                                so far as it is decided that undertakings which as at
                                                                                11 July 2001 had already lodged a request with the tax
                          (2004/C 21/74)                                         authority for application of the gfa scheme, but in respect
                                                                                of which no formal decision had yet been taken, would
                                                                                not be eligible for the transitional scheme;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2)    order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                                those of the applicant.
In Case T-46/03 R: Leali Spa, whose registered office is in
Odolo (Italy), represented by G. Belotti and G. Vezzoli, lawyers,
supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia)
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Pignataro and A. Whelan) — application for
suspension of operation of the Commission decision of
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65
CS (COMP/37.956 — concrete-reinforcing bars), inasmuch as
it imposes upon the applicant, jointly and severally with
Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA, in liquidation, a fine of
EUR 6,093 million and, solely upon the applicant, a fine of                On 27 December the applicant lodged a request with the
EUR 1,082 million, the President of the Court of First Instance            Netherlands tax authority to set up a reserve with effect from
made an order on 20 October 2003, the operative part of                    1 January 2000 on the basis of the scheme concerning
which is as follows:                                                       international financing activities (the gfa scheme).
1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           In the contested decision (1) the Commission found that the
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                           gfa scheme was aid that was incompatible with the common
                                                                           market and ordered the Netherlands Government to abolish
                                                                           the scheme. In addition the contested decision provides for a
                                                                           transitional scheme. The Commission subsequently, in an
                                                                           answer to a question from the Netherlands Government,
                                                                           indicated that this transitional scheme does not apply for
                                                                           undertakings which, like the applicant, had in fact lodged a
                                                                           request for application of the gfa scheme before 11 April 2003
Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Friesland Coberco                     but where no decision had yet been taken on that request. The
Dairy Foods Holding N.V. against the Commission of the                     Netherlands tax authority then rejected the applicant’s request.
                    European Communities
                         (Case T-348/03)
                                                                           In support of its application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                           of general principles of Community law, including the prin-
                          (2004/C 21/75)                                   ciple of equal treatment and the principle of protection of
                                                                           legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the general
                                                                           principles of Community law preclude the restriction of the
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           transitional scheme to undertakings in respect of which a
                                                                           decision had been taken as at 11 July 2001. By virtue of that
                                                                           restriction, undertakings which at that moment had a request
                                                                           pending before the tax authority for permission to set up a
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  reserve, and which were therefore just as much entitled to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 expect that the gfa scheme was compatible with the Treaty,
European Communities on 10 October 2003 by Friesland                       are being treated differently without any objective justification.


title: Case F-22/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 May 2011 — Luis Maria Bombín Bombín v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Annual leave — Carry-over of annual leave — Official who has left the service — Financial compensation)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 May 2011 — Luis Maria Bombín Bombín v European Commission
   (Case F-22/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Leave on personal grounds - Annual leave - Carry-over of annual leave - Official who has left the service - Financial compensation)
   2011/C 232/68
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Luis Maria Bombín Bombín (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Pardo Pedernera, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Action seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission to refuse the applicant, on his retirement, compensation for more than 12 days of annual leave not taken

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Bombín Bombín's action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bombín Bombín to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 54.


title: Case T-458/17: Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Shindler and Others v Council

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/30

         Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Shindler and Others v Council
   (Case T-458/17)
   (2017/C 347/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Harry Shindler (Porto d’Ascoli, Italy) and 12 other applicants (represented by: J. Fouchet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (EU, Euratom) XT 21016/17 of 22 May 2017, together with the annex XT 21016/17, ADD 1 REV 2 to that decision, authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an agreement setting out the arrangements for that Member State’s withdrawal from the European Union;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings in full, including legal fees of EUR 5 000;

                           —

                           without prejudice, in particular, to the submission by SCP CORNILLE-POUYANE, lawyers at the Bordeaux Bar, of all relevant observations at the hearing to be fixed by the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging formal illegality of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) XT 21016/17 of 22 May 2017, together with the annex XT 21016/17, ADD 1 REV 2, to that decision, authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an agreement setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union (‘the contested decision’). That plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging infringement of the Euratom Treaty in that the contested decision and its annex provide for the automatic withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Atomic Energy Community in conjunction with the withdrawal from the European Union without being the subject of a separate withdrawal and negotiation procedure.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging interference with the division of powers between the European Union and the Member States in that the contested decision and its annex confer on the European Union an exceptional horizontal competence to institute the negotiations on the agreement for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and exclude the possibility of a mixed agreement, with the result that there is no provision for ratification of the final agreement by the Member States.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging substantive illegality of the contested decision; this plea is divided into three parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging infringement of the principle of equality inasmuch as, by adopting the contested decision and its annex, the defendant has allowed a withdrawal procedure to be initiated without expatriate European citizens having had the opportunity to set out their views on the possible loss of their European citizenship. The right to be heard and to express one’s opinion by way of a vote in the event of an election with a European scope has thus not been respected. The contested decision therefore validates the existence of a category of second-class citizens, deprived of their right to vote because they have exercised their freedom of movement, and that decision has consequently failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment of citizens. The applicants take the view that discrimination between citizens on the basis of their residence has occurred.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging infringement of Article 203 TFEU in that the contested decision provides for the withdrawal of the British overseas countries and territories (OCTs), without the inhabitants of those OCTs having been able to vote for withdrawal from the association arrangement laid down by the European Treaty, without reference to the specific procedure under Article 203 TFEU which applies to them, and consequently the freedom of establishment under Article 199 TFEU is infringed by the contested decision.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate expectations inasmuch as the applicants consider that the opening of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, the outcome of which is uncertain, will have a significant impact on the rules governing the rights which they derive from European citizenship, notwithstanding the fact that they have created a private and family life for themselves in another Member State through exercising their freedom of movement. The contested decision and its annex thus do not comply with the requirement of predictability of legal rules imposed by the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, and are also at variance with respect for private and family life.