C 204/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/98 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-23/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/78)                                                         (1999/C 204/82)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 26 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-11/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling       the register of Case C-23/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Abdulreza Kazemi              from the Tribunale di Genova): Palmira Ieropoli, Giovanni
Nava v Confcommercio.                                                  Sgambellone v Banca Carige SpA.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-72/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/83)
                        (1999/C 204/79)
                                                                       By order of 27 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               the register of Case C-72/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the register of Case C-342/98: Commission of the European              from the Landesvergabeamt Tirol): Firma Ortner GmbH v
Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                               Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-346/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/80)                                                         (1999/C 204/84)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-346/98: Commission of the European              the register of Case C-25/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Communities v Ireland.                                                 from the Tribunale di Genova): Fiduciaria Internazionale Srl v
                                                                       Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-419/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-26/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/81)                                                         (1999/C 204/85)
By order of 23 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-419/98 (reference for a preliminary             the register of Case C-26/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): Marcella             ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Giolfo e C. Srl v
Moretti v Baoco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA.                                 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                              (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.


title: Case C-195/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 4 April 2001, in the case of Scandecor Development AB and others against Scandecor Marketing AB and another

text:
14.7.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 200/53
—    Infringement of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689/EEC:              4.    Article 12 of the Trade Marks Directive provides that a
     Under the first indent of Article 1(4), a precise and                    trade mark shall be ‘liable’ to revocation in specified
     uniform definition of hazardous waste, required for                      circumstances. When those circumstances exist, must the
     application of the directive, is achieved by reference to                court revoke the trade mark, or does the court retain any
     Annexes I, II and III to the directive and the list of                   discretion as to whether to revoke?
     hazardous waste to be drawn up in accordance with the
     procedure laid down in Article 18. It follows that, in their
     legislation to transpose the directive, the Member States          (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
     must take those annexes and that list as a basis for
     determining the field of application of their national
     provisions. The list, which is contained in Council
     Decision 94/904/EC, supplements the provisions of the
     directive on hazardous waste.
     The possibility for the Member States to adopt stricter
     protective measures in fields harmonised by Community              Action brought on 8 May 2001 by the Commission of the
     environmental provisions is not to be equated with an              European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     option not to transpose such harmonisation measures.                                          Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-196/01)
(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.                                                                   (2001/C 200/95)
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice on 8 May 2001 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,               The applicant claims that the Court should:
by order of that court of 4 April 2001, in the case of                  —     declare that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
Scandecor Development AB and others against Scandecor                         to comply with its obligations under Article 1(a) of
                   Marketing AB and another                                   Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
                                                                              waste (1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156 EC of
                        (Case C-195/01)                                       18 March 1991 (2) and Commission Decision 94/3/EC of
                                                                              20 December 1993 establishing a list of wastes pursuant
                                                                              to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on
                        (2001/C 200/94)                                       waste (3);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords of
4 April 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on
7 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Scandecor           Pleas in law and main arguments
Development AB and others against Scandecor Marketing AB
and another, on the following questions:
                                                                        —     Although the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was obliged,
                                                                              under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC, to
1.   Is a trade mark to be regarded as liable to mislead the
                                                                              incorporate the European Waste Catalogue (EWC), for-
     public within the meaning of article 12(2)(b) of Council
                                                                              ming the subject-matter of Decision 94/3/EC, into its
     Directive No 89/1104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                              national law, it has simply reproduced it in a ministerial
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                              circular which is binding on the administrative authorities
     trade marks (the ‘Trade Marks Directive’) if the origin of
                                                                              but not on third parties.
     the goods denoted by the mark is a bare exclusive
     licensee?                                                          —     At the same time, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                              introduced a nomenclature applying purely to Luxem-
2.   What are the criteria to be applied in determining whether               bourg, which is totally different from the EWC. Various
     a trading relationship comprises a single undertaking for                operations in respect of which use of the EWC is
     the purposes of the Trade Marks Directive?                               precluded are linked to the implementation of national
                                                                              measures designed to transpose the Community legis-
3.   Is a company a person for the purpose of article 6(1)(a)                 lation on waste. In addition, the coexistence of two lists
     of the Trade Marks Directive?                                            (the Luxembourg nomenclature and the EWC) between


title: Case T-603/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/60

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council
   (Case T-603/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/82)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case C-70/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 February 2009 — Alexander Hengartner and Rudolf Gasser

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 February 2009 — Alexander Hengartner and Rudolf Gasser
   (Case C-70/09)
   2009/C 102/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alexander Hengartner, Rudolf Gasser

      Defendant: Vorarlberger Landesregierung

      Question referred

   Is the carrying on of hunting, if the person licensed to hunt sells the shot wildlife within the country concerned, a self-employed activity within the meaning of Art. 43 EC, even if that activity is not intended to make an overall profit?


title: Case T-351/09: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Acetificio Marcello de Nigris v Commission (Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/17

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2011 — Acetificio Marcello de Nigris v Commission
   (Case T-351/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 282/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Acetificio Marcello de Nigris Srl (Afragola, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and S. Fiorentino, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)] (OJ 2009 L 175, p. 7)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Consorzio Filiera Aceto Balsamico di Modena.

               3.

               Acetificio Marcello de Nigris Srl shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The Italian Republic and Consorzio Filiera Aceto Balsamico di Modena shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 13 June 1996 in Case C-170/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Cour de Cassation): Office National de l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro (Social security - Unemployment benefit - Article 69 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
No C 210/4            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                       ( Third Chamber )                             pending before that court between Office National de
                                                                     l'Emploi and Calogero Spataro — on the interpretation of
                        of 13 June 1996                              Article 69 ( 4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of
in Case C-144/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made           14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
by the Tribunal de Police,«'Toulouse ): Criminal proceedings         to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                against Jean-Louis Maurin ( 1 )                      members of their families moving within the Community, as
(Request for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of the            amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC )
principles concerning observance ofthe rights ofthe defence          No 2001 /83 ( OJ No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 ) — the Court ( Third
and of the adversarial nature of proceedings — National              Chamber ), composed of: J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
legislation and the prevention offraud — Foodstuffs — No             President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C.
                            jurisdiction)                            Gulmann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the
                          ( 96/C 210/06 )                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 June 1996 the operative
                                                                     part of which is as follows :
               (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Article 69 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
         published in the European Court Reports)                    14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
                                                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
In Case C-144/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          members of their families moving within the Community, as
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Police ( Local Crime             amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
Court), Toulouse ( France ), for a preliminary ruling in the         No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , applies not to an unemployed
criminal proceedings before that court against Jean-Louis            person's acquisition of entitlement to benefits, but to his
Maurin — on the interpretation of the principles concerning          requalification for benefits, when he returns to Belgium
observance of the rights of the defence and of the adversarial       after the three-month period prescribed by Article 69 (1 ) (c)
nature of proceedings — the Court ( Third Chamber ),                 has expired. Article 69 (4) does not permit entitlement to
composed of: J. -P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,            benefits to be denied to unemployed persons who, on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C. Gul                 date of their application for benefits, fulfil the conditions
mann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; D.                   imposed by Belgian law for acquisition of such
Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the                  entitlement.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 1996 , the
operative part of which is as follows :                              (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
The Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether
procedural rules applicable to offences under national
legislation which falls outside the scope of Community law
may be in breach of the principles concerning observance of
the rights of the defence and of the adversarial nature of
proceedings.                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                           of 23 May 1996
                                                                     in the case of Daniel Zanone v. Council of Europe and the
                                                                                French Republic
                                                                                Case C-9/96 P )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            ( 96/C 210/08 )
                       ( Third Chamber )
                        of 13 June 1996                              On 15 January 1996 an appeal was lodged before the Court
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities against the order of
in Case C-170/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
the Belgian Cour de Cassation ): Office National de l'Emploi         16 November 1995 dismissing, on the ground of manifest
                   v. Calogero Spataro (')                           lack of jurisdiction, the action brought by Daniel Zanone ,
(Social security — Unemployment benefit — Article 69 (4)             represented by Véronique Ducros de Lafarge de Romefort,
             of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)                         of the Paris Bar, 17 rue des archives, Paris, against the
                          ( 96/C 210/07 )                            Council of Europe and the French Republic, the proceedings
                                                                     not having been served on the defendants .
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 23 May 1996 the Court of Justice ( First
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Chamber ) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to
         published in the European Court Reports)                    bear his own costs .
In Case C-170/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Cour de Cassation ( Court


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 July 1997 in Case T-455/93: Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organization of the market in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector - Variable slaughter premium for sheep - Conditions for reimbursement of clawback - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality)

text:
No C 252/26           \ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre Thielen, 21 Rue
de Nassau, against Commission of the European                          (') OJ No C 133 , 4. 5 . 1996 .
Communities (Agent: Etiene Lasnet) — application under
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant in connection with a programme
financed by the European Development Fund — the Court
of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                          of 9 July 1997
given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which it:
                                                                      in Case T-455/93 : Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd and Others
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities (')
 1 . dismisses the application;                                        (Agriculture — Common organization of the market in
                                                                       the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector — Variable slaughter
                                                                      premium for sheep — Conditions for reimbursement of
2 . orders the defendant to pay the costs.                            clawback — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of
                                                                      protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of
                                                                                proportionality)
0 ) OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/57 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      In Case T-455/93 : Hedley Lomas ( Ireland ) Ltd, established
                                                                      in Dublin, Sharpbond Trading Ltd, established in
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Stratford-upon-Avon (United Kingdom), J. & S. A. Wood
                           of 2 July 1997                             ( Livestock Exports ), Ltd, established in Redditch (United
                                                                      Kingdom ), J. & S. A. Wood, established in Redditch,
in Case T-28/96: Doreen Chew v. Commission of the                     Lesley Dorothy Joan Mills, residing in Framlingham
                  European Communities (')                            ( United Kingdom), Live Sheep Traders Ltd, established in
                                                                      Framlingham, Livestock Sales Transport Ltd, established
(Officials — Representation — Staff Committee —                       in Framlingham, Peter Ziokowski, residing in Folkestone
          Elections — List of staff entitled to vote)                 ( United Kingdom), Brigstock Farms Ltd, established
                           ( 97/C 252/56 )                            in London, K. A. & S. B. M. Feakins, established
                                                                      in Llancloudy (United Kingdom ), Deaconvale Ltd,
                                                                      established in Gloucester ( United Kingdom), represented
                                                                      by Conor Quigley, Barrister, of the Bar of England and
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Wales, instructed by A. M. Burstow, Solicitor, Crawley,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Jean-Marie Bauler, 42 Grand-Rue, against
In Case T-28/96 : Doreen Chew, a member of the local                  Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                  Thomas Van Rijn, Christopher Docksey and Philippa
residing at Suva ( Fiji ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of          Watson), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                      and Northern Ireland ( Agents : J. E. Collins and Gerald
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Barling) — application for the annulment of Article 2 of
30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European                     Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1922/92 of 13 July
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —                       1992 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 1633/84 laying
application, first, for annulment of the result of the                down detailed rules for applying the variable slaughter
elections held to provide for representation of staff serving         premium for sheep, repealing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2661 /
outside the Community, announced by the Electoral                     80 and determining the conditions for the reimbursement
Committee on 13 February 1995 , in so far as it named the             of the clawback following the judgment of the Court of
regional representative elected by the local staff                    Justice in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90 ( OJ No
constituency for geographical area No 3 and, second, for              L 195 , 14. 7. 1992, p. 10 ) — the Court of First Instance
an order requiring the Commission to pay one Belgian                  ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P.
franc as compensation for the non-material damage                     Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,                    9 July 1997, in which it:
President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 July 1997, in which it:                                 1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
1 . dismisses the action;                                                  costs of the Commission;
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/27
3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                of 9 July 1997
(') OJ No C 290 , 6 . 11 . 1992 .                                     in Case T-4/96: S v. Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ! )
                                                                      (Officials — Occupational disease — Medical Committee
                                                                      — Basis for calculating the benefits provided for by
                                                                                Article 73 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/59 )
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 9 July 1997                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v.
         Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                      In Case T-4/96 : S v. Court of Justice of the European
(Officials — Decisions of the Commission refusing special             Communities ( Agent: Timothy Millett), application for,
    leave for elections and travelling time — Admissibility)          first, the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of 11 April 1995 , in so far as it adopted an invalidity rate
                           ( 97/C 252/58 )                            of 6 % for the purpose of calculating the lump sum
                                                                      provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                      Officials of the European Communities; secondly,
                 (Language of the case: English)                      acknowledgement of the applicant's right to that lump
                                                                      sum calculated on the basis of an invalidity rate of 30% ;
                                                                      and, thirdly, compensatory interest — the Court of First
In Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Jose Luis                   Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
Buendía Sierra, Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz               President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria                           Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July
Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada                   1997, in which it:
Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcia Velazquez, Maria Carmen
Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez
Marin, Eva Maria Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano                1 . dismisses the application;
and Leopoldo Fabra Utray, officials of the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Ramon
García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the Burgos Bar, with an              2 . orders each party to bear its own costs.
address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of J. and
B. Cremades and Associates, 391 Avenue Louise, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana                  (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
Maria Alves Vieira and Blanca Vila Costa ) — application
for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of
2 May 1995 refusing to grant the applicants special leave
for elections and travelling time in order to enable them to
exercise their right to vote in Spain, where they had
retained official residence and where they went to vote in
the elections to the European Parliament in June 1994,                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and for an order that the Commission grant each official
the number of days' travelling time used by them in order                                        of 9 July 1997
to go to vote in Spain or pay them the amount                                 in Case T-92/96: Roberto Monaco v. European
corresponding to the number of days used — the Court of                                           Parliament (M
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenarts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio                (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     Infringement of the notice of competition and notice of
judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it:                                  vacancy — Principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations —
                                                                        Principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination)
 1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/60 )
 2 . orders the parties each to bear their own costs.                                  (Language of the case: French)
 O OJNoC 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       In Case T-92/96 : Roberto Monaco, an official of the
                                                                       European Parliament, residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and


title: Case T-368/10: Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/61

      Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission
      (Case T-368/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/110)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Rubinetteria Cisal (Alzo Frazione di Pella, Italy) (represented by M. Pinnarò, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annulment of Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010;

                  —

                  alternatively, if the Court should not annul the fine imposed, reduction of the fine to a more appropriate sum;

                  —

                  an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-364/10 Duravit and Others v Commission.
      In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
      I.   Infringement and misapplication of Articles 101 TFEU and 53 EEA
      In this regard, it is claimed that the decision, in so far as it concerns Cisal, is quite wrong, for Cisal has played no part (even an unwitting part) in any cartel, having merely exchanged non-sensitive business information which was unreserved and (in almost every case) later than the decisions taken independently and already spreading on the market.
      II.   Breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment
      According to the applicant, the Commission failed to consider that the role, involvement, responsibility, advantages etc. of and for each producer differed significantly from one to another. Specifically, the defendant has drawn no distinctions and does not explain why the maximum penalty is to be imposed on Cisal, given that the latter: (i) was never a member of one of the two associations (Michelangelo); (ii) never had bilateral contacts; (iii) did not take part in meetings at which all three products were considered (but only taps, cocks and fittings and ceramic ware) and (iv) had always had only an insignificant share of the market.
      So far as the fixing of the fine is concerned, the applicant maintains that the Commission ought to have taken into account and determined the actual effect of the infringement on the market and the extent of the relevant geographic market, and to have taken account of Cisal’s actual economic ability to distort competition and of its specific weight.
      The applicant alleges also that the basis used for computing the amount of the fine was incorrect, and that the Commission failed to have regard to mitigating circumstances.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Removal from the register of Case C-167/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/103)
   By order of 19 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-167/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.07.2003.


title: Case T-394/16: Action brought on 25 July 2016 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO –eBay (DATABAY)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/16

      Action brought on 25 July 2016 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO –eBay (DATABAY)
      (Case T-394/16)
      (2016/C 364/13)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Omnicom International Holdings, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: eBay, Inc. (San Jose, California, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DATABAY’ — EU trade mark application No 12 353 975

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 925/2015-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear its own and pay the applicant’s costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-294/07: Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Stepek v OHIM — Masters Golf Company (GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/19

         Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Stepek v OHIM — Masters Golf Company (GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN)
   (Case T-294/07)
   (2007/C 235/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Wilhelm Stepek (Stadl-Paura, Austria) (represented by: H. Heigl, W. Berger and G. Lehner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Masters Golf Company Ltd.
   Form of order sought

               —

               acknowledgement that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was wrong to adopt the decision of 23 May 2007 in Case R 95/2007-1;

               —

               annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 May 2007 in Case R 95/2007-1;

               —

               an order that The Masters Golf Company Ltd pays the applicant the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wilhelm Stepek.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 12, 18, 24, 25 and 28 (application No 3 136 041).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Masters Golf Company Ltd.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark ‘The Masters’ for goods in Class 25 and the figurative mark ‘The Masters GOLF COMPANY’ (Community trade mark No 1 582 535) for goods in Classes 12, 25 and 28.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration in respect of goods in Classes 12, 25 and 28 rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Termination of proceedings and declaration that the appeal is inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the finding that the appeal is inadmissible is unlawful and seeks an award of costs against The Masters Golf Company Ltd.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 March 1998 in Case T-310/97 R: Government of the Netherlands Antilles v. Council of the European Union (Association of the overseas countries and territories - Decision amending at mid-term the OCT Decision - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for interim measures - Urgency - None)

text:
C 137/16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   2.5.98
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Instance suspending the operation, in part and subject to
                      of 20 March 1998                               certain conditions, of Council Decision 97/803/EC of
                                                                     24 November 1997 amending at mid-term Decision 91/
in Case T-301/97: Pierre-Alexis Feral v. Committee of the            482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and
                          Regions (1)                                territories with the European Economic Community (1) Ð
(Officials Ð Time limit for lodging complaint Ð Manifest             the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                 inadmissibility of the action)                      on 2 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows.
                        (98/C 137/34)
               (Language of the case: French)                        1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
In Case T-301/97: Pierre-Alexis Feral, official of the
Committee of the Regions, residing at Brussels,                      2. Costs are reserved.
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, against Committee of                (1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.
the Regions (Agents: Jordi Garcia-Petit and Denis
Waelbroeck) Ð application for the annulment of a
decision of the Committee of the Regions of 2 September
1997 refusing to grant to the applicant the daily
subsistence allowance provided for by the first paragraph
of Article 10(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of
the European Communities Ð the Court of First Instance                              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
(Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, K.                          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 20 March 1998, the operative part of                                      of 3 March 1998
which is as follows:                                                 in Case T-610/97 R: Hanne Norup Carlsen and Others v.
                                                                                Council of the European Union
1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                                                                     (Decision refusing access to certain documents Ð Opinion
                                                                     of the Legal Service Ð Protection of the public interest Ð
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
                                                                     Application for interim measures Ð Request that
                                                                              documents be released to a national court)
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
                                                                                (98/C 137/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              In Case T-610/97 R: Hanne Norup Carlsen, residing in
                       of 2 March 1998                               Kokkedal (Denmark), Ingeborg Fangel, residing in
                                                                     Copenhagen, Nicolas Fischer, residing in Copenhagen,
in Case T-310/97 R: Government of the Netherlands                    Jùrgen Erik Hansen, residing in Frederiksberg (Denmark),
         Antilles v. Council of the European Union                   Marianne Henriksen, residing in Karrebñksminde
(Association of the overseas countries and territories Ð             (Denmark), Ole Donbñk Jensen, residing in Copenhagen,
Decision amending at mid-term the OCT Decision Ð                     Yvonne Petersen, residing in Copenhagen, Iver Reedtz-
Interlocutory proceedings Ð Application for interim                  Thott, residing in Copenhagen, Lars Ringholm, residing in
               measures Ð Urgency Ð None)                            Ringsted (Denmark), Arne Würgler, residing in Hellerup
                                                                     (Denmark), represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen and, at
                        (98/C 137/35)                                the hearing, by Katja Hùegh, of the Copenhagen Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
               (Language of the case: English)                       Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, v. Council of the European
                                                                     Union (Agents: Jean-Claude Piris, Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen,
In Case T-310/97 R, Government of the Netherlands                    and Martin Bauer) Ð application for interim measures,
Antilles, represented by Pierre Vincent FrancËois Bos and            requesting, first, an injunction ordering the Council to
Marco Marinus Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an                release to the Hùjesteret (Danish Supreme Court) and the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 parties in the case pending before that court documents
Marc Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, against Council of the                  DOK.R/2026/77 (ENV.118) (AGRI 563) and DOK.R/
European Union (Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus                        1867/77 (JUR.95) (ENV.106) and, secondly, that the
Houttuin), supported by the Commission of the European               Hùjesteret and the parties to the proceedings be required
Communities (Agents: Thomas van Rijn and Xavier                      not to divulge, in the course of any public hearing, the
Lewis) and Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and              tenor of the documents so released, the President of the
Francesca Quadri) Ð application for interim measures in              Court of First Instance has made an order on 3 March
the form of an order of the President of the Court of First          1998, in which he:


title: Case T-333/08: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bull and Others v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/49

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bull and Others v Commission
   (Case T-333/08) (1)

   2010/C 37/74

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-77/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a grey background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a grey background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a grey background)
   (Case T-77/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a grey background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2013 (Case R 704/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a grey background.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-404/06 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2006 by the European Training Foundation against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 October 2006 in Case F-1/05, Landgren v European Training Foundation

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/37

         Appeal brought on 22 December 2006 by the European Training Foundation against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 October 2006 in Case F-1/05, Landgren v European Training Foundation
   (Case T-404/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: European Training Foundation (Turin, Italy) (represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Pia Landgren
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare this appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               As a result, annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 October 2006 in Case F-1/05 Landgren v European Training Foundation, which is the subject of this appeal, and thereby recognise the lawfulness of the decision of 25 June 2004 to dismiss the respondent and, accordingly, the lack of any legal basis for compensation;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the costs, including the costs of proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By judgment of 26 October 2006, annulment of which is sought in this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision of the European Training Foundation of 25 June 2004 terminating the indefinite contract of Mrs Landgren as a temporary agent and asked the parties to agree on the monetary compensation required by the unlawfulness of the decision.
   In support of its claim for annulment of that judgment, the Foundation raises two pleas, the first alleging disregard of the extent of the obligation to state reasons. The appellant submits that there is no legal basis requiring a defendant to state reasons for a decision dismissing a temporary agent and that, by finding to the contrary, the judgment under appeal breaches Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment (1) and the case-law applying that provision. Moreover, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal erroneously relies on agreements and conventions which are not applicable to relations between the institutions and their staff. It also submits that the judgment under appeal contains a contradiction between the formal requirement of a statement of reasons and the lawfulness of the knowledge the person concerned has of the reasons for the decision to terminate.
   By its second plea the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal contains an error of law relating, first, to the distortion of the facts and, second, to failure to have regard to the public interest, in that it makes an erroneous assessment of the material facts of which Mrs Landgren was informed and which constitute the reasons for the decision to dismiss.

      (1)  The Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities were laid down by Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (I), p. 30).


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 November 2001 in Case C-451/98: Antillean Rice Mills NV v Council of the European Union (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regulation (EC) No 304/97 — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
2.2.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 31/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                      of 22 November 2001                                    2.    Orders Antillean Rice Mills NV to pay the costs.
                                                                             3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian
in Case C-451/98: Antillean Rice Mills NV v Council of                             Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission
                     the European Union (1)                                        of the European Communities to bear their own costs.
(Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
                                                                             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
lation (EC) No 304/97 — Action for annulment — Inadmis-
                              sibility)
                          (2002/C 31/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                of 22 November 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-452/98: Nederlandse Antillen v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
In Case C-451/98: Antillean Rice Mills NV, established in                    (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
Bonaire (Netherlands Antilles), (Avocats: W. Knibbeler and                   territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
K.J. Defares), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:               countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the European Union (Agents:                      lation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment —
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom                                            Inadmissibility)
of Spain (Agent: L. Pérez de Ayala Becerril), French Republic
(Agent: by K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance), Italian
Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri), and                                                (2002/C 31/02)
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van
Rijn) —application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard
measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the
overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1) — the                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann                                in the European Court Reports)
and F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,              In Case C-452/98: Nederlandse Antillen (Avocats: P.V.F. Bos
has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in which it:                       and M. Slotboom) v Council of the European Union (Agents:


title: Case T-87/07: Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Scil Proteins v OHIM — Indena (affilene)

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/27

         Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Scil Proteins v OHIM — Indena (affilene)
   (Case T-87/07)
   (2007/C 117/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Scil Proteins GmbH (Halle, Germany) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant dated 23 January 2006, and the decision-corrigendum of the Second Board of Appeal of 31 January 2007, Case R 10/2006-2 be annulled as far as the opposition is dismissed with respect to the goods ‘extracts of medical plants for use in the … cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’;

               —

               the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Indena SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘affilene ’for goods in class 1 — application No 2 751 931

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘AFFILIN ’for goods in classes 1 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld partially

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since the trade marks in question are confusingly similar also with regard to the goods for which the registration was allowed to proceed by the Board of Appeal.


title: Case C-213/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 May 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 February 2015 in Case T-188/12 Patrick Breyer v European Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/7

         Appeal brought on 8 May 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 February 2015 in Case T-188/12 Patrick Breyer v European Commission
   (Case C-213/15 P)
   (2015/C 245/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Patrick Breyer, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter and dismiss the action;

               —

               order the applicant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal, the European Commission claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 in Breyer v Commission, Case T-188/12, in so far as the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2012, by which the Commission had refused to grant the applicant full access to documents concerning the Republic of Austria’s transposition of Directive 2006/24 (1) and to documents concerning the case which had given rise to the judgment of 29 July 2010 in Commission v Austria
       (2) in so far as the decision had refused access to the written submissions lodged by the Republic of Austria in the course of that case.
   The applicant had founded his action for annulment inter alia of the contested decision on a single ground by which, in substance, he had complained of an infringement of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (3). The General Court annulled the contested decision in so far as by that decision access was refused to the written submissions lodged by the Republic of Austria in the course of that case. With regard to the ground on which the action had been founded, the General Court stated, in essence, that the written submissions at issue were documents within the meaning of Article 2(3) read in conjunction with Article 3(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and consequently fell within the scope of application of that regulation, and that subparagraph 4 of Article 15 (3) TFEU does not preclude the application of Regulation No 1049/2001 to the written submissions at issue on the basis of their special nature.
   The Commission founds its appeal on a single point of law by which it complains of the interpretation of Article 15(3) TFEU on which the General Court based its conclusion that that provision did not preclude the application of Regulation No 1049/2001 to the written submissions at issue on the basis of their special nature.

      (1)  Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

      (2)  C-189/09, EU:C:2010:455.

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


title: Case T-300/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to contract LIEN 97 2011 — Partial refusal of access — Determination of the subject-matter of the initial application — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process — Principle of sound administration — Concrete and individual examination — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission
   (Case T-300/10) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to contract LIEN 97 2011 - Partial refusal of access - Determination of the subject-matter of the initial application - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process - Principle of sound administration - Concrete and individual examination - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 194/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, Agents, assisted by R. van der Hout, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 April 2010 refusing the applicant full access to the file relating to contract LIEN 97 2011

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 29 April 2010 in so far as it impliedly refuses access to the documents which it sent to the colleague of the European Ombudsman, other than those identified by the latter in files 1 to 4 of the file relating to contract LIEN 97 2011;

               2.

               Also annuls the Commission’s decision of 29 April 2010 in so far as it expressly or impliedly refuses access to the documents of the file relating to contract LIEN 97 2011 referred to in paragraphs 106, 134, 194 and 196 of this judgment;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and four fifths of the costs incurred by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case T-266/13: Action brought on 16 May 2013 — Brainlab v OHIM (Curve)

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/14

         Action brought on 16 May 2013 — Brainlab v OHIM (Curve)
   (Case T-266/13)
   2013/C 215/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by J. Bauer, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 March 2013 in Case R 2073/2012-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in registration procedure No 008608473;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Curve’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 10, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8 608 473

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-356/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2014  — European Commission v Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Inadequate definition of waters which are polluted or are vulnerable to pollution — Inadequate classification of vulnerable zones — Action programmes — Deficient measures)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/5

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 — European Commission v Poland
   (Case C-356/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Inadequate definition of waters which are polluted or are vulnerable to pollution - Inadequate classification of vulnerable zones - Action programmes - Deficient measures))
   (2015/C 026/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in having inadequately defined the waters which are vulnerable to pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources, in having inadequately classified vulnerable zones and in having adopted action programmes, as provided for under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, which include measures which are incompatible with the directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 91/676, read in conjunction with Annex I thereto, and under Article 5 of that directive, read in conjunction with Annexes II A(2) and III(1)(1) thereto.

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-233/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (České republiky) lodged on 30 May 2008 — Milan Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (České republiky) lodged on 30 May 2008 — Milan Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor
   (Case C-233/08)
   (2008/C 209/38)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Referring court
   Nejvyšší správní soud
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Milan Kyrian

      Defendant: Celní úřad Tábor
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 12(3) of Council Directive of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures be interpreted as meaning that, where measures for enforcement of a claim are contested before the court of a Member State in which the requested authority has its seat, that court is entitled, in accordance with the legislation of that Member State, to review whether the instrument permitting enforcement (enforcement order) is enforceable and has been properly served on the debtor (1)?

               2.

               Does it follow from general legal principles of Community law, in particular from the principles of a right to a fair trial, sound administration and the rule of law, that service of the instrument permitting enforcement (enforcement order) on the debtor in a language other than one he understands, which, moreover, is not an official language of the State in which it is served on the debtor, constitutes a defect which makes it possible to refuse to enforce on the basis of such an instrument permitting enforcement (enforcement order)?

      (1)  OJ L 73, s. 18.


title: Case C-58/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2014  — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 February 2014 — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl
   (Case C-58/14)
   2014/C 142/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Applicant and respondent: Amazon EU Sàrl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the description of goods in subheading 8543 7010 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) to be understood as covering only apparatus which have exclusively translation or dictionary functions?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative: Does subheading 8543 7010 of the Combined Nomenclature cover also apparatus the translation or dictionary functions of which are secondary by comparison with their main function (in this case, a reading function)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff; Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).


               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/1

         (2007/C 82/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 69, 24.3.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

      OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

      OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

      OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-37/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Mohamed El Morabit v Council of the European Union

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/44

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Mohamed El Morabit v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-37/07)
   (2007/C 82/95)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed El Morabit (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: U. Sarikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Council.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Council decision placing him on the list of persons, groups and entities that are subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1).
   The applicant submits that, although he has been found guilty by a court of participating in a criminal organisation with a terrorist aim, he has appealed against the judgment. He submits that there is a real chance that he will be acquitted on appeal. The Council's decision is therefore premature.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.


26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 101/53
—     order the defendant to make good the non-material                         ation allowance and, therefore, the other realted allow-
      damage suffered, evaluated provisionally at EUR 50 000,                   ances, in accordance with the Lozano case-law;
      subject to adjustment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward
Until 1 May 2002, the applicant, an official at the Office for            earlier in Case T-205/02 Salvador García v Commission (1),
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), held the post                Case T-298/02 Ana Herero Romeu v Commission (2) and
of Head of Service of the Cancellation Division. By the decision          T-299/02 Dedeu v Commission (2).
being contested in the present action, the applicant was
transferred as legal adviser to Vice-President for Legal Affairs.
In support of his claims for annulment, the applicant pleads:             (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14 September 2002, p. 22.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ C 289 of 23 November 2002, p. 38.
—     erroneous and inadequate statement of reasons for the
      decision of 22 April 2002;
—     breach of the principle of proportionality and of freedom
      of expression;
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-305/01 (1)
—     infringement of the rights of defence, in particular the
      right to be heard;
                                                                                (2003/C 101/93)
—     breach of the principle of sound administration; and
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials.
                                                                          By order of 29 January 2003 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-305/01: Thalassa Seafoods S.A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
Action brought on 3 March by Tomás Salazar Brier                          (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-83/03)
                         (2003/C 101/92)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-84/02 ( 1)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/94)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tomás Salazar Brier,
residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-Gallardo                By order of 30 January 2003 the President of the First Chamber
Gil-Fournier and Dolores Domínguez Pérez, Members of the                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Madrid and La Coruña Bars respectively.                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case T-84/02:
                                                                          Armand de Buck v Commission of the European Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—     declare invalid the decision of 24 February 2003, implicit
      in the Commission’s silence, refusing to grant an expatri-


title: Case C-331/99: Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
30.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 314/5
4. The Commission’s decision determines the element of aid             Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
     by applying the Community reference rate prevailing at            mission of the European Communities against the
     the date on which the grants of aid were disbursed. The                                 Kingdom of Belgium
     rate indicated by the Commission corresponds to that
     specified for the repayment of illegal aid in Communi-                                     (Case C-337/99)
     cation 97/C/273/03 from the Commission to the Member
     States.
                                                                                (1999/C 314/10)
     That rate cannot be applied retroactively to the period
     which elapsed between the point in time at which the aid          An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     was granted and the entry into force of the above                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     mentioned rules, since it is contrary to the principle of         10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
     legal certainty and the principle of the protection of            Communities, represented by Barry Doherty, of its Legal
     legitimate expectations.                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 236 of 7.9.1999, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 126 of 9.5.1989, p. 1.                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                           administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Article 4a(4) of Directive 90/388/EEC as amended by
                                                                           Directive 96/19/EC (1), alternatively by failing to communi-
Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission                       cate the same to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium
of the European Communities against the French Republic                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and
                                                                           under the Treaty establishing the European Community;
                         (Case C-331/99)
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                         (1999/C 314/09)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September            Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities;                    according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result
represented by Hans Støvlbaek, of its Legal Service, and Olivier       to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the         addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in        laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner           in the present case expired on 11 January 1997 without the
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            the Commission’s application.
— Declare that, by adopting and keeping in force of
     Article 1(f) of Decree No 77-469 of 28 April 1977, the            (1) OJ L 74 of 22.3.1996, p. 13.
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC (1);
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
The list of items of information laid down in Article 6(1) of          mission of the European Communities against the
Directive 76/768/EEC is exhaustive, and therefore the Directive                              Kingdom of Belgium
does not permit national rules requiring information to be
given on the quality and quantity of the substances mentioned                                   (Case C-338/99)
on the packaging, in advertising or in the name of the cosmetic
products covered by the Directive.                                                              (1999/C 314/11)
(1) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    products (OJ L 262 of 27 September 1976, p. 169), as amended,      10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
    with regard to Article 6, by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of       Communities, represented by Léna Ström, Legal Adviser, and
    21 December 1988 (OJ L 382 of 31 December 1988, p. 46).
                                                                       Olivier Couvert-Castéra, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                       Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-375/06: Action brought on 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/16

         Action brought on 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-375/06)
   (2006/C 261/29)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               primarily, a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 2 of Directive 2003/105/EC;

               —

               or, alternatively, a declaration that by failing forthwith to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of that directive into domestic law expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97


title: Case C-572/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2016 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2016 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-572/16)
   (2017/C 053/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) and the provisions of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) preclude legislation enacted by a Member State which, for the 2013-2020 trading period, prescribes a mandatory substantive time limit applicable to out-of-time applications for the allocation of free emissions allowances to existing installations, thereby making it impossible to correct errors or to supplement (incomplete) data in the allocation application in cases where such shortcomings are not established until after the time limit laid down by the Member State has expired?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

      (2)  OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1.


title: Case C-449/11 P: Appeal brought on 1 September 2011 by Solvay Solexis SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-195/06 Solvay Solexis v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/29

         Appeal brought on 1 September 2011 by Solvay Solexis SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-195/06 Solvay Solexis v Commission
   (Case C-449/11 P)
   2011/C 311/48
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Solvay Solexis SpA (represented by: T. Salonico, G.L. Zampa and G. Barone, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as they find that Ausimont participated in the infringement before May-September 1997 and, accordingly, recalculate the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as, with reference to the period May — September 1997, they fail to recognise the lesser gravity of Ausimont’s conduct, on account of the fact that it did not participate in the agreement on the limitation of capacity and in so far as they place Ausimont in an incorrect category for the purpose of determining the basic amount of the fine and, accordingly, recalculate the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the decision; or

               —

               In the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as referred to in the two preceding paragraphs and refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 2 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) contradictory and insufficient statement of reasons and, in that connection, manifest distortion of the evidence, in that it has not been established that Ausimont’s conduct from May 1995 to May-September 1997 can be classified as forming part of an ‘agreement’ or ‘concerted practice’; nor are reasons given for the rejection of the objective evidence produced by the appellant to demonstrate that Ausimont’s conduct during that period was highly competitive and independent.

               2.

               Breach of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and legal certainty, including in the light of the failure to have regard to the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines, (2) failure to state reasons and manifest distortion of the evidence in relation to the assessment of the gravity of Ausimont’s conduct and the determination of the sanction to be applied to it.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3.


title: Case T-103/14 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 September 2014  — Frucona Košice v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Alcohol and spirits — Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of any urgency — Prima facie case not made out)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/44

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-103/14 R II)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Alcohol and spirits - Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of any urgency - Prima facie case not made out))
   2014/C 409/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s., Košice (Slovakia), represented by K. Lasok QC, B. Hartnett and J. Holmes, Barristers, and O. Geiss, lawyer,

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, P. J. Loewenthal and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2013) 6261 final of 16 October 2013 on State aid SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005), implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s., in so far as it orders the Slovak Republic to recover the aid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.