title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2000 in Case T-24/99: Claudio d'Aloya v Council of the European Union (Officials — Promotion — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
C 259/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) — appli-                    damage — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
cation for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                     composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and
No 2380/98 of 3 November 1998 amending Council Regu-                        A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
lation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which
duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s             it:
Republic of China (OJ 1998 L 296, p. 1) — the Court (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili, Presi-               1.    Dismisses the action;
dent, P. Lindh, R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and P. Mengoz-
zi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
has given a judgment on 29 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation No 2380/98 of                  (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
      3 November 1998 amending Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
      imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s Republic
      of China in so far as the Council did not abide by all the
      consequences of the review findings relating to the applicant’s
      imports of Lucci Creation’s products;
2.    Orders that the amendment of the rates of duty shall remain in            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      force until the competent institutions have adopted the measures
      necessary to comply with this judgment;                                                         of 27 June 2000
3.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and pay those of the
      applicant;                                                            in Case T-67/99: K v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (Officials — Duty of the administration to provide assist-
                                                                            ance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Scope —
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.99.                                                                                Limits)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 In Case T-67/99: K, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                            E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                           of 13 July 2000                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                            Rheinsheim, v Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-24/99: Claudio d’Aloya v Council of the Euro-                     (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application
                           pean Union (1)                                   for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 May 1998
                                                                            rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the applicant
                                                                            pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials of
(Officials — Promotion — Action for annulment — Action                      the European Communities, seeking the assumption by the
                            for damages)                                    defendant of responsibility for payment of the costs of criminal
                                                                            proceedings brought in response to the submission of a
                          (2000/C 259/29)                                   complaint to the Brussels Public Prosecutor’s office — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Gar-
                                                                            cı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:
In Case T-24/99: Claudio d’Aloya, an official of the Council of             1.    Dismisses the action;
the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
W. Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an                   2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Council of the European
Union (Agents: G. Maganza and M. Bauer) — application, first,               (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
for annulment of two decisions adopted by the Council in the
context of the procedure for filling a grade A 2 post in its
Legal Service and, second, for compensation for non-material


title: Case T-178/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/65

      Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)
      (Case T-178/16)
      (2016/C 211/80)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Policolor’ — Application for registration No 10 277 176

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 346/2015-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  alter the contested decision in its entirety;

                  —

                  in consequence, annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 16 December 2014 in opposition No B 1 991 457;

                  —

                  dismiss the opposition made by the intervener with regard to the registration of the European Union trade mark No 10 277 176;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No. 2015/2424.


title: Case T-128/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Japan Tobacco v OHIM — Torrefacção Camelo (CAMELO) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the Community figurative mark CAMELO — Earlier national figurative mark CAMEL — Relative ground for refusal — No risk of profit derived unduly from, and no risk of detriment to, the distinctive character and reputation of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — No infringement of the rules of the appeal procedure — Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Japan Tobacco v OHIM — Torrefacção Camelo (CAMELO)
   (Case T-128/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the Community figurative mark CAMELO - Earlier national figurative mark CAMEL - Relative ground for refusal - No risk of profit derived unduly from, and no risk of detriment to, the distinctive character and reputation of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - No infringement of the rules of the appeal procedure - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2008/C 64/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Japan Tobacco, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ortiz López, S. Ferrandis González and E. Ochoa Santamaría, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Torrefacção Camelo Lda (Campo Maior, Portugal) (represented by: A. De Sampaio, I. Cavalho Franco and C. de Almeida Carvalho, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2006 (Case R 669/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco, Inc. and Torrefacção Camelo Lda.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Japan Tobacco, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Torrefacção Camelo Lda to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case C-622/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 15 September 2016 in Case T-220/13 Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/16

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 15 September 2016 in Case T-220/13 Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
   (Case C-622/16 P)
   (2017/C 038/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl (represented by: E. Gambaro, F. Mazzocchi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment dismissing the action brought by Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori and, consequently, annul Commission Decision 2013/284/EU (1) in so far as it considered that the recovery of the aid in the form of the exemption from the imposta comunale sugli immobili (ICI) (municipal tax on real estate) should not be ordered and that the measures relating to the exemption from IMU (imposta municipale propria) (the Municipality’s own property tax) did not fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU;

               —

               in any event set aside those parts of the judgment covered by such pleas in the appeal as the Court may find valid and well founded;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1)

               By its first plea in law, divided into four parts, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori claims infringement and misapplication of Article 108 TFEU, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the duty of sincere cooperation in Article 4(3) TEU, misinterpretation of the concept of absolute impossibility, incorrect legal characterisation of the facts, distortion of certain evidence and contradictory reasoning, in that the General Court found that the Commission did not err in failing to order the Italian Republic to recover the sums relating to the tax exemptions which non-commercial entities for specific purposes benefitted from under the ICI rules, which the Commission considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market.

               2)

               By its second plea in law, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori claims that Article 107(1) TFEU was infringed and misapplied in that the General Court found that the IMU exemption, which replaced the ICI rules as of 2012, did not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2013/284/EU of 19 December 2012 on State aid SA.20829 (C 26/2010, ex NN 43/2010 (ex CP 71/2006)) Scheme concerning the municipal real estate tax exemption granted to real estate used by non-commercial entities for specific purposes implemented by Italy (OJ 2013 L 166, p. 24).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0908(01)

Action brought on 7 May 1994 by Alexander Flandorfer Friedman, Erna Flandorfer Friedman and GFG Bau Dachdecker Spengler GmbH against the Republic of Austria

Official Journal C 250 , 08/09/1994 P. 0007 - 0007

Action brought on 7 May 1994 by Alexander Flandorfer Friedman, Erna Flandorfer Friedman and GFG Bau Dachdecker Spengler GmbH against the Republic of Austria (94/C 250/05)An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the EFTA Court on 7 May 1994 by Alexander Flandorfer Friedman, a Slovenian citizen, Erna Flandorfer Friedman, both residing in Vienna (Austria), and GFG Bau Dachdecker Spengler GmbH, Vienna. The applicants state that the first applicant was refused a permanent residence permit in Austria.The applicants apply for action to be taken against the defendant for infringement of:(a) Articles 6, 7, 28 (1) to (3), 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement, Articles 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Article 4 (4) of Council Directive 68/360/EEC; and(b) the applicant's rights to free movement of persons under Articles 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement and Articles 8 (1) and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The applicants also request a grant of legal aid, including the appointment of a lawyer.


title: Case C-20/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility of the action — Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Public debt securities — Preferential tax treatment — Justification — Combating of tax evasion — Combating of tax avoidance)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-20/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility of the action - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Public debt securities - Preferential tax treatment - Justification - Combating of tax evasion - Combating of tax avoidance)
   2011/C 160/03
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Caeiros, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, C. Guerra Santos and J. Menezes Leitão, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 EC and 40 EEA Agreement — Public debt securities — Preferential tax treatment for securities issued by the Portuguese State

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               By providing under the exceptional tax regularisation scheme for assets not in Portuguese territory on 31 December 2004 (‘regime excepcional de regularização tributária de elementos patrimoniais que não se encontrem no território português em 31 de Dezembro de 2004’) established by Law No 39-A/2005 of 29 July 2005, for preferential tax treatment of public debt securities issued only by the Portuguese State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case T-311/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Fitoussi v OHIM — Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark IBIZA REPUBLIC — Earlier figurative national mark depicting a five-pointed star in a circle — Absolute ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Fitoussi v OHIM — Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC)
   (Case T-311/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark IBIZA REPUBLIC - Earlier figurative national mark depicting a five-pointed star in a circle — Absolute ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 193/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Fitoussi (Vincennes, France) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, T. van Innis and G. Glas, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot (Ibiza, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of 7 May 2008 of OHIM’s Second Board of Appeal (Case R 1135/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Paul Fitoussi and Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Paul Fitoussi to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, of 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-175/07, Case C-176/07, Case C-177/07, Case C-178/07, Case C-179/07, Case C-180/07, Case C-181/07, Case C-182/07, Case C-183/07, Case C-184/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 2 April 2007 — 1. S.A. SAFBA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 2. S.A. Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 3. SA Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 4. SA Sucrerie de Bourgogne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 5. Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 6. S.A. des Sucreries du Marquenterre v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 7. Cristal Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 8. S.A. Lesaffre Frères v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 9. Sociéte Vermendoise Industries v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 10. S.A. Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 2 April 2007 — 1. S.A. SAFBA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 2. S.A. Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 3. SA Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 4. SA Sucrerie de Bourgogne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 5. Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 6. S.A. des Sucreries du Marquenterre v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 7. Cristal Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 8. S.A. Lesaffre Frères v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 9. Sociéte Vermendoise Industries v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 10. S.A. Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
   (Case C-175/07 - Case C-176/07 - Case C-177/07 - Case C-178/07 - Case C-179/07 - Case C-180/07 - Case C-181/07 - Case C-182/07 - Case C-183/07 - Case C-184/07)
   (2007/C 117/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Grande instance de Nanterre
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: S.A. SAFBA (C-175/07), S.A. Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein (C-176/07), SA Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils (C-177/07), SA Sucrerie de Bourgogne (C-178/07), Sucrerie Bourdon (C-179/07), S.A. des Sucreries du Marquenterre (C-180/07), Cristal Union (C-181/07), S.A. Lesaffre Frères (C-182/07), Sociéte Vermendoise Industries (C-183/07), S.A. Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes (C-184/07)

      Defendants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Commission Regulation No 314/2002 (1) invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2) and in the light of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, in that it does not provide, for calculation of the contribution on production, for the exclusion from the financing requirements of those quantities of sugar contained in processed products, which are exported without benefit of an export refund?

               2.

               In the event that the answer to that question is in the negative:
               Is Regulation No 1686/2005 (3) invalid in the light of Commission Regulation No 314/2002 and of Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 and of the principle of proportionality, in that it fixes a contribution on production for sugar which is calculated on the basis of an ‘average loss ’per tonne exported, which does not take account of the quantities exported without a refund, although those same quantities are included in the total used for evaluation of the total loss to be financed?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 12).


title: Case T-661/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Latvia v Commission (EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Flat-rate financial correction — Conditionality — Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions — Norms — Article 5(1) and Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 6(1) and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Latvia v Commission
   (Case T-661/14) (1)

   ((EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Flat-rate financial correction - Conditionality - Minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions - Norms - Article 5(1) and Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 6(1) and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009))
   (2016/C 305/40)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62), in so far as that decision excludes from EU financing certain expenditure of the Republic of Latvia, amounting to EUR 739 393,95, due to the fact that it is incompatible with EU rules.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as that decision excludes from EU financing certain expenditure of the Republic of Latvia, amounting to EUR 739 393,95, due to the fact that it is incompatible with EU rules;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu against the Council of the European Union (Case T-207/97)

text:
18 . 10. 97           I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/21
3 . the demand that EPAC undertake work that is the                     ( d ) in any event, the Commission's interim decision,
       responsibility of the State;                                           inasmuch as it is radical, takes no account of the
                                                                              circumstances of the case and of the interests and
                                                                              values at issue, is in breach of the principles of good
4 . the failure of Silopor, Empresa de Silos Portuários SA,                   faith and of the legitimate expectations of the
       to pay its debt to EPAC.                                               economic operators affected by it and seriously
                                                                              offends against the principle of proportionality.
Thus, an economic viability and financial restructuring
plan for EPAC was drawn up by Government Order
No 887/96 — SETF of 17 May 1996, which was
approved jointly by the SETF and the SEPAA by way of
Government Order of 26 July 1996 . That joint order                     Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Christopher Atkin
proposed that EPAC be authorized to negotiate a loan at                 and others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
market rates up to a maximum of Esc 50 000 000 000,
30 000 000 000 of which were to be guaranteed by the                                              (Case T-205/97)
State .
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/41
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions :
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
I.       The statement of reasons for the           Commission 's
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 1997
                                                                        by Christopher Atkin, residing in Brussels, David
decision is not adequate. It considers in this respect that             Cornwell, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ), and Paul
the statement of reasons for the adoption of the contested              Smeulders, residing at Sutton Courtney ( United Kingdom ),
decision is even more necessary in view of the fact that the            represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with
extraordinary power which the case-law of the Court of                  an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Justice conferred on the Commission to impose interim                   Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de Nassau .
measures by way of provisional decisions envisaged until
now only the suspension of payments by the State to
undertakings receiving aid and not the suspension of a                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
mere State guarantee which does not constitute any form
of aid for the banks to which it was extended and which                 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
are in a third-party relationship to the undertaking which                    to be regraded,
obtained the State guarantee .
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
                                                                              administrative complaint,
II .      The   Commission's     decision  is  unlawful    in  the
conditions in which it was adopted:                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 ( a ) the Portuguese State 's guarantee did not constitute
        State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC
       Treaty. The applicant points out in this respect                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
       that the Commission does not claim that the State 's              Case T- 16/97 (').
       guarantee for nothing more than a restructuring
        operation of EPAC's assets — a guarantee which did               (>) OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
        not involve either the direct or indirect transfer of
        State resources to that public           undertaking —
        constitutes State aid . Likewise, the contested decision
        makes no mention of the right/duty of the Portuguese
        State, in its capacity as holder of the whole of the
        undertaking's capital, to lend it such support;                  Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-207/97 )
 ( b ) even if it should be characterized as aid, the
        Portuguese State was entitled to grant it without being                                       ( 97/C 318/42 )
        required to notify it to the Commission;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 ( c) accordingly, there was no breach of Article 93 ( 3 ) of            An action against the Council of the European Union was
        the EC Treaty;                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak---  C 318/22                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
 Communities on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu, residing                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 at Chelles ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of
 the Paris Bar, 9 rue Alfred de Vigny, Paris.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments of the applicant,
                                                                         which imported colour television sets from Turkey
 The applicant claims that the Court should censure                      continuously during the period from 1 January 1991 to
 Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1103/97.                                    15 January 1994 and which is also contesting a
                                                                         Commission decision addressed to Germany stating that
                                                                         the remission of import duties is not justified in the case
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     of the applicant, are the same as those in Cases T-187/
                                                                         97 H and T-l 92/97 (2).
 The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament,                     (') See page 18 of this Official Journal .
 directs his action against Council Regulation ( EC )                    ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
 No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions
 relating to the introduction of the euro, which in
 particular replaces every reference to the ecu in legal
 instruments by a reference to the euro . It follows a
 previous action which the applicant directed against the
 Commission's decision, given on 16 October 1996 ,
 proposing to the Council the text of the above Regulation               Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Hertie Waren- und
 ( Case T-175/96 (*)). That first action was held by the                 Kaufhaus GmbH against the Commission of the European
 Court of First Instance to be manifestly inadmissible. The                                           Communities
 applicant had already stated in his first application that, if                                     Case T-2 11/97
 the Court of First Instance accepted the Commission's
 argument concerning inadmissibility, he would bring                                                 ( 97/C 318/44 )
 another action against the Regulation itself. Accordingly,
the pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-175/96 .                                                              (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ C 9, 11 . 1 . 1997, p. 19 .                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997
                                                                        by Hertie Waren- und Kaufhaus GmbH, Frankfurt am
                                                                        Main, represented by Ehle & Schiller, Rechtsanwalte,
                                                                        Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter.
Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Grundig AG against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           ( Case T-210/97)
                             ( 97/C 318/43 )
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 19 February
                                                                                1997 ( REM: 18/96 ) refusing the remission of customs
                 (Language of the case: German)                                duties amounting to DM 593 110,16,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Grundig AG, Fiirth ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Ehle & Schiller, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       The pleas in law and main arguments of the applicant,
Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter.                          which imported colour television sets from Turkey during
                                                                       the period from 1 September 1992 to 1 March 1994 and
                                                                       which is also contesting a Commission decision addressed
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            to Germany stating that the remission of import duties is
                                                                       not justified in the case of the applicant, are the same as
                                                                       those in Cases T-186/97 (') and T-191/97 ( 2).
— annul the decision of the Commission of 19 February
     1997 ( REM: 17/96 ) refusing the remission of a sum               (') See page 17 of this Official Journal .
     amounting to DM 6 596 210,31 ,                                    ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
— order the defendant to pay the costs.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/63

         Action brought on 19 February 2004 by Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-70/04)
   (2004/C 94/158)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 February 2004 by Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the tacit decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing to grant the applicants' application for access to various documents in the possession of that institution and the Commission decision of 19 December 2003 rejecting the confirmatory application submitted by the applicants on 2 December 2003;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicants object to the defendant's refusal to give them access to certain documents relating to the EUROSTAT file. In issue is, in particular, the final report of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) and the annexes to the report of the IAS of 7 July 2003.
   The defendant bases its refusal on the exception laid down in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1), namely the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits.
   In support of their claims, the applicants argue:

               —

               infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of the abovementioned regulation, of the fundamental right of access to documents and of the principle of proportionality;

               —

               the existence of a manifest error of assessment;

               —

               disregard of the duty to state reasons.

         They take the view that the defendant:

               —

               gives a broad meaning in the contested decision to the exceptions it relies on;

               —

               has clearly wrongly assessed the elements of the case;

               —

               has failed to evaluate the applications for access in this case in the light of the actual content of the documents in relation to the exceptions relied on, even assuming that they can be relied upon. In addition, it did not give reasons why partial communication could not have been envisaged;

               —

               has failed to weigh up the interests in question.

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p.43


title: Case T-284/02: Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou against Council of the European Union

text:
C 289/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Gemeinschafts-                   infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expec-
kernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH against Commission of the                     tations. Moreover, the defendant caused the breakdown of the
                    European Communities                                contractual negotiations and thus infringed the principle of
                                                                        proper administration. The infringement of those principles
                                                                        caused a loss to the applicant in the amount of the sum
                        (Case T-283/02)                                 claimed.
                        (2002/C 289/55)
                  (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                        Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia
                                                                         Dionyssopoulou against Council of the European Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                        (Case T-284/02)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 September 2002 by Gemein-
                                                                                (2002/C 289/56)
schaftskernkraftwerk Neckar GmbH, Neckarwestheim (Ger-
many), represented by S. Zickgraf, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      EUR 332 083,60 together with interest of 5,25 % since             Communities on10 September 2002 by Triantafyllia Dionys-
      12.6.2000 on the sum of EUR 328 782,43 and interest               sopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin,
      of 5,25 % since 21.8.2000 on the sum of EUR 3 301,17;             lawyer.
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Council not to promote the
                                                                              applicant to Grade C 2 during the 2001 promotion
                                                                              procedure;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 300 000 to
                                                                              compensate her for all the damage suffered by her;
From September 1994 to July 1998 the applicant supplied
services in the context of the TACIS Programme at the                   —     order the Council to pay the costs.
Ukrainian atomic power station in Saporoshje. The parties had
concluded Direct Agreements in that regard. In order to
perform the contracts the applicant employed various experts
and appointed a project manager.                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges manifest
According to the application, although the applicant was not            error of assessment in that the defendant has failed to take
contractually bound to appoint a project manager after August           into account, even in the alternative, the length of the
1998, the project manager provided ‘on-site-assistance’ at the          applicant’s period of service in her grade. The applicant alleges
Saporoshje nuclear power station from August 1998 to                    moreover that the defendant failed to observe Article 5 of the
December 1999. The experts also continued to work on the                Staff Regulations in that there is a contradiction between the
individual projects in Saporoshje. Already in April 1998 the            applicant’s skills and her being kept at her grade. According to
parties were negotiating on the conclusion of a fourth contract,        the applicant, the defendant has also failed to observe the
which, however, was ultimately not concluded.                           resolutions adopted by the Joint Committee of 16 July 1993
                                                                        inasmuch as the defendant took into account the actual
                                                                        number of days worked by the applicant and the number of
The applicant claims that it has suffered a loss in the amount          days taken as sick leave. Finally, the applicant points out that
of the sum claimed as a result of a non-contractual situation           the Staff Regulations require that officials be respected and, if
and that the defendant is required to compensate that loss in           necessary, helped and also lays a duty on the employer to have
accordance with Article 288(2) EC. By promising that the                regard for officials’ welfare. In the present case, the applicant
applicant would obtain a contract or payment from another               is the victim of harassment with the result that progress in her
source, the defendant created an expectation in the applicant           career has been hindered.
which caused it to work for the defendant without a contract.
By ultimately not fulfilling that expectation, the defendant


title: Case C-167/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, interested third parties: E.On Benelux and Burgemeester en Wethouders Rotterdam

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, interested third parties: E.On Benelux and Burgemeester en Wethouders Rotterdam
   (Case C-167/09)
   2009/C 193/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne

      Defendant: Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

      Interested third parties: E.On Benelux and Burgemeester en Wethouders Rotterdam

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the obligation of interpretation in conformity with directives imply that the obligations under Directive 96/61/EC (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (now: Directive 2008/1/EC (2) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control), as transposed in the Wet Milieubeheer, can and should be interpreted as meaning that, in deciding on an application for an environmental permit, the national emission ceiling for SO2 and NOx in Directive 2001/81/EC (3) on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (hereinafter ‘the NEC Directive’) should be fully taken into account, in particular as regards the obligations under Article 9(4) of Directive 96/61/EC, now Directive 2008/1/EC?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Does the duty of a Member State to refrain from adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by a directive also apply during the period of 27 November 2002 to 31 December 2010 envisaged in Article 4(1) of the NEC Directive?

                           (b)

                           Do positive obligations rest with the Member State concerned during the relevant period of 27 November 2002 to 31 December 2010, either in parallel with the aforementioned duty to refrain, or in place thereof, if the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive are exceeded or if there is a risk that they may be exceeded at the end of that period?

                           (c)

                           In answering Questions 2(a) and 2(b), is it significant that an application for an environmental permit for an installation which contributes to the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive being exceeded or the risk of their being exceeded, indicates that the installation will become operational in the year 2011 at the earliest?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Do the obligations referred to in question 2 imply that, in the absence of guarantees that the installation for which an environmental permit was sought would not contribute to the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive being exceeded or the risk of them being exceeded, the Member State must refuse the application for the environmental permit or attach further conditions or restrictions to it? In answering that question, is the extent to which the installation contributes to the emission ceiling being exceeded or the risk of being exceeded, of significance?

                           (b)

                           Or does the NEC Directive imply that, where the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx are exceeded or risk being exceeded, a Member State also has the discretion to bring about the result prescribed by the Directive, not by refusing the permit or by making it subject to further conditions or restrictions, but rather by adopting other measures such as other forms of compensation?

               4.

               Where obligations as referred to in questions 2 and 3 rest with a Member State, can a private individual bring the issue of compliance with those obligations before a national court?

               5.

                           (a)

                           Can an individual rely directly on Article 4 of the NEC Directive?

                           (b)

                           If so, is it possible to do so from 27 November 2002 or only from 31 December 2010? Is it significant, when answering that question, that an application for an environmental permit indicates that the installation will become operational in the year 2011 at the earliest?

               6.

               More particularly, if the granting of an environmental permit and/or other measures contributes to the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive being exceeded or the risk of their being exceeded, is an individual entitled, on the basis of Article 4 of that Directive:

                           (a)

                           to make a general claim that the Member State concerned should adopt a package of measures which, by 2010 at the latest, would limit the annual national emissions of SO2 and NOx to amounts not greater than the national emission ceilings in the NEC Directive, or, if that does not succeed, a package of measures which would limit the emissions to those amounts as soon as possible thereafter?

                           (b)

                           to make concrete claims that the Member State concerned should adopt specific measures in respect of an individual installation — for example, by refusing a permit or attaching further conditions or restrictions to the permit — which, by the year 2010 at the latest, would contribute to the annual national emissions of SO2 and NOx being limited to amounts not greater than the emission ceilings in the NEC Directive, or, if that does not succeed, specific measures which would contribute to the emissions being limited to those amounts as soon as possible thereafter?

                           (c)

                           In answering questions 6(a) and 6(b), is the extent to which the installation contributes to the emission ceiling being exceeded, or the risk of it being exceeded, of significance?

      (1)  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ L 257, p. 26).

      (2)  Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) (OJ L 24, p. 8).

      (3)  Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (OJ L 309, p. 22).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig Wünsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas - Export refund department (Case C-276/95)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/ 15
     action against the Council of the European Union and               the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
     the joined party, the Kingdom of Spain, for the                     1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     annulment of Article 115 of Council Regulation ( EC )              14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     No 40/94, and declare admissible the applicant's action            Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
     against the Council of the European Union and the                  — Export refund department — on the following
     Kingdom of Spain for the annulment of the said                     questions :
     Article 115 ,
                                                                        1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
— order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal .                         tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
                                                                             Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
The Court of First Instance wrongly held that the applicant                  content and consequently on the degree of its
                                                                             esterification ?
was affected solely in her objective capacity as a trade-mark
agent, in the same way as any other trade-mark agent                    2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the
finding himself, actually or potentially, in a comparable                    maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
situation as regards the use of the Dutch language . The                     esterified potato starch exported between April 1987
Court of First Instance overlooked, however, the fact that,                  and August 1987 so as not to preclude its classification
where a category of persons falls to be considered, it must                  within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of the Common
necessarily be a valid category. In the present case, the Court              Customs Tariff 1987 ?
of First Instance has created a category which is incapable of
existing, since, according to Regulation No 1 of the Council
determining the languages to be used by the European
Community, any person established in an EC country may                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
use his own language .                                                  by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig
                                                                        Wiinsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
                                                                                Export refund department
                                                                                Case C-2 76/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig                                     ( 95/C 268/33 )
                                                                                \
Wunsche & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Export                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                       refund department                                European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
                          Case C-2 74/95                                the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
                          ( 95/C 268/31 )                               1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 — Export refund department — on the following
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June                questions :
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
Ludwig Wunsche & Co v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                           tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
— Export refund department — on the following                                Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
questions :
                                                                             the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
                                                                             content and consequently on the degree of its
1 , does the tariff classification of esterified potato starch               esterification ?
     within subheading 3505 10 50 of the combined
     nomenclature depend on its acetyl content and                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: how high could the
     consequently on the degree of its esterification ?                      maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
                                                                             esterified potato starch exported between March 1987
2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the                 and December 1987 so as not to preclude its
     maximum acetyl content have been in the case of                         classification within tariff subheading 1 1.08 A IV of the
     esterified potato starch exported in February 1988 so as                Common Customs Tariff 1987 ?
     not to preclude its tariff classification within subheading
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Appeal brought on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and
                                                                        Volker Lenz against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof               Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig            European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,
Wunsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —                           T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker
                   Export refund department                             Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case C-275 /95 )                                                    ( Case C-277/95 P )
                          ( 95/C 268/32 )                                                        ( 95/C 268/34 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An appeal against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


C 200/56              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-58/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-25/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/103)                                                    (2001/C 200/105)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            By order of 15 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-58/00: (reference for a preliminary          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Leopold Hein v        the register of Case C-25/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter, Landesstelle Salz-       from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
burg.                                                               Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 v Hôtel Plaza SpA.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-247/00 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-375/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 200/104)
By order of 7 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice                               (2001/C 200/106)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-247/00: Commission of the European           By order of 18 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Portuguese Republic.                                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-375/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case T-122/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for copper industrial tubes — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Size of the market concerned — Aggravating circumstances — Repeat infringement)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission
   (Case T-122/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Size of the market concerned - Aggravating circumstances - Repeat infringement)
   2009/C 153/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Outokumpu Oyj (Espoo, Finland); and Luvata Oy, formerly Outokumpu Copper Products Oy (Espoo) (represented by: J. Ratliff, Barrister, F. Distefano and J. Luostarinen, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, Agent)

      Re:

               (1)

               Application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2003) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 — Industrial tubes); and (2) Counterclaim by the Commission that the amount of the fine should be increased.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Outokumpu Oyj and Luvata Oy to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 January 2004 in Case T-113/02 Gustaaf van Dyck v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 6 January 2004
   in Case T-113/02 Gustaaf van Dyck v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Staff case - Action for annulment - Act adversely affecting the applicant - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 94/117)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-113/02: Gustaaf van Dyck, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Wuustwezel (Belgium), represented by S. Corbanie, lawyer, and by A.E. Bywater, Solicitor, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H.M.H. Speyart), application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 January 2002 rejecting the complaint of 14 August 2001, of the Commission's decision of 5 July 2001 rejecting the informal appeal of 1 July 2001 and of the Commission's alleged decision of unknown date revising the applicant's staff report, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, and V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 16 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is rejected as inadmissible;

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ 2002 C 131, 1.6.02


title: Case T-346/08: Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/18

         Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon)
   (Case T-346/08)
   (2008/C 260/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 June 2008 (Appeal Case R 943/2007-4); and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A three-dimensional mark, representing a small bell with a red ribbon, for goods in Class 30 (Application No 4 770 831).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character and its availability does not have to be preserved.

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


title: Case T-849/14 P: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Annual assessment — Internal rules — Appeals procedure — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/40

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-849/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Annual assessment - Internal rules - Appeals procedure - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 381/47)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and E. Raimond, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 18 November 2014 in De Nicola v EIB (F-59/09 RENV, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:248), and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Carlo De Nicola to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case C-307/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Aquapur Multiservizi SpA

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 February 2014 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Aquapur Multiservizi SpA
   (Case C-307/14)
   (2016/C 027/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: Aquapur Multiservizi SpA

      Questions referred

   By order of 18 November 2015 the President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case C-32/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Petra Würker v Familienkasse Nürnberg (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family allowances — Articles 77 and 78 — Benefits for dependent children of pensioners and for orphans — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Family benefits — Article 67 — Family members residing in another Member State — Concept of ‘pension’  — Recipient of a pension granted, pursuant to German legislation, for bringing up children following the death of the person from whom that recipient was divorced ( ‘Erziehungsrente’ ))

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Petra Würker v Familienkasse Nürnberg
   (Case C-32/13) (1)

   ((Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Family allowances - Articles 77 and 78 - Benefits for dependent children of pensioners and for orphans - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Family benefits - Article 67 - Family members residing in another Member State - Concept of ‘pension’ - Recipient of a pension granted, pursuant to German legislation, for bringing up children following the death of the person from whom that recipient was divorced (‘Erziehungsrente’)))
   2014/C 112/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Nürnberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Petra Würker

      Defendant: Familienkasse Nürnberg

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Nürnberg — Interpretation of Articles 77 and 78 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Right of a pensioner to family benefits — Concept of ‘pension’ — Pension granted for bringing up children following the death of the former spouse (‘Erziehungsrente’).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               On a proper construction of Article 77(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, a benefit such as the pension for bringing up children provided for in Paragraph 47(1) of Book VI of the Social Security Code (Sozialgesetzbuch, Sechstes Buch), which is granted, in the event of death, to the former spouse of the deceased for the purposes of bringing up the children of that former spouse, cannot be treated in the same way as ‘pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work or occupational disease’ within the meaning of Article 77 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71;

               2)

               On a proper construction of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, a benefit such as the pension for bringing up children provided for in Paragraph 47(1) of Book VI of the Social Security Code is covered by the concept of ‘pension’ within the meaning of Article 67.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-11/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (internal combustion engine) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an internal combustion engine — Earlier national design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Visible features of a component part of a complex product — No different overall impression — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (internal combustion engine)
   (Case T-11/08) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an internal combustion engine - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Visible features of a component part of a complex product - No different overall impression - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2011/C 311/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath, W. Festl-Wietek and M. Wetzel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: T. Musmann, H. Timmann, M. Büttner and S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of 8 October 2007 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1380/2006-3), relating to invalidity proceedings for Community designs between Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 in Case F-143/11, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/5

         Appeal brought on 22 August 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 in Case F-143/11, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-447/13 P)
   2013/C 291/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an action for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request of 16 August 2011 and for (ii) payment of the sum of EUR 3 316,31 in respect of part of the costs incurred for the purposes of Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission.
   In support of its claims, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts.

               2.

               Incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

                           —

                           the concept of ‘request’ within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

                           —

                           Article 91 of those regulations and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law;

                           —

                           the concept of the obligation on an institution of the European Union to adopt the measures necessary for compliance with a judgment of the Courts of the European Union.

               3.

               Absolute failure to carry out any preliminary investigations and to state reasons, and failure to rule on a claim made by the appellant in the proceedings.

               4.

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, and consequently manifest breach of the principle of the court specified by law, referred to, inter alia, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case C-370/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2008 — Data I/O GmbH v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2008 — Data I/O GmbH v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost
   (Case C-370/08)
   (2008/C 285/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Data I/O GmbH

      Respondent: Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (2), to be so interpreted that it allows an electrical adapter, which is designed to provide the electrical connection between an automatic programming machine and electrical components to be programmed, to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature?

               2.

               If this question is answered in the negative: is the aforementioned adapter then to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature if it contains a so-called memory-chip, on which the programming process is stored and from which it can be retrieved?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case C-410/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2008 — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2008 — Swiss Caps AG v Hauptzollamt Singen
   (Case C-410/08)
   (2008/C 313/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Swiss Caps AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is heading 1517 of the Combined Nomenclature (Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 — Combined Nomenclature (CN)) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that preparations of only one (concentrated) oil or fat, to which vitamin E alone has been added and which has not otherwise been treated, are to be classified under that heading?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
               Is heading 1517 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that the addition of concentrated vitamin E (d-alpha-tocopherol concentrate) in a quantity of 22,8 mg to 600 mg of concentrated fish oil (Incromega EPA SR 500 TG) leads to the exclusion of the goods from that heading?

               3.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative:
               Is Rule 5 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that capsule casings consisting of 212,8 mg of gelatin, 77,7 mg of glycerol and 159,6 mg of purified water and containing food supplement substances are to be regarded as packing material?

               4.

               If the third question is answered in the negative:
               Is heading 1517 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that a capsule casing consisting of 212,8 mg of gelatin, 77,7 mg of glycerol and 159,6 mg of purified water leads to the exclusion of the capsules described above from that heading?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.


title: Case C-343/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2012 — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV & Kamera Express Belgium BVBA

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2012 — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV & Kamera Express Belgium BVBA
   (Case C-343/12)
   2012/C 303/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Euronics Belgium CVBA
   Defendants:

               Kamera Express BV

               Kamera Express Belgium BVBA

      Question referred

   Is Article 101 of the (Belgian) Law on market practices and consumer protection (Wet betreffende marktpraktijken en consumentenbescherming), which, inter alia, is intended to protect the interests of consumers and is worded as follows:

      ‘Article 101(1)All undertakings shall be prohibited from offering for sale or selling goods at a loss.
      A sale at a loss shall mean any sale at a price which is not at least equal to the price at which the undertaking purchased the item or which the undertaking would have to pay to replenish its stock, after any discounts granted and definitively obtained. In order to determine whether a sale is a sale at a loss, no account shall be taken of discounts which, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, are granted in exchange for commitments entered into by the undertaking other than for the purchase of goods’,

   contrary to Directive 2005/29/EC (1) in so far as it prohibits sales at a loss, whereas Directive 2005/29/EC appears not to prohibit such sales practices and the Belgian Law may be stricter than the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC and the prohibition under Article 4 of that directive?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case F-57/15: Action brought on 20 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/46

         Action brought on 20 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-57/15)
   (2015/C 213/75)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for, first, a declaration that Article 9 of the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 (GIP) is illegal and, secondly, annulment of the decision confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant to the EU institutions pensions scheme in accordance with the new GIP.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare that Article 9 of the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is illegal;

               —

               annul the decision of 18 September 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights to the EU institutions pension scheme, in accordance with the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-515/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luís das Neves Palhota, Termiso Lda

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luís das Neves Palhota, Termiso Lda
   (Case C-515/08)
   (2009/C 44/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luís das Neves Palhota, Termiso Lda
   Question referred
   Do the provisions of Article 8 of the Law of 5 March 2002 and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Royal Decree of 29 March 2002 (implementation decree) infringe Article 49 and Article 50 of the EC Treaty, in that they impose on foreign employers who wish to post workers the prior obligation of sending a declaration of posting to the Social Laws Inspection Service (Dienst Toezicht op de Sociale Wetten) and also of keeping documents which are comparable with the Belgian individual accounts or pay slips, as a result of which access to the Belgian services market is prevented or at least hampered?


title: Joined Cases T-101/05 and T-111/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — BASF and UCB v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices in the vitamin products sector — Choline chloride (vitamin B4) — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Fines — Deterrence — Repeat infringement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Single and continuous infringement)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — BASF and UCB v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-101/05 and T-111/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices in the vitamin products sector - Choline chloride (vitamin B4) - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Fines - Deterrence - Repeat infringement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Single and continuous infringement)
   (2008/C 22/75)
   Languages of the case: English and French
   Parties

      Applicants: BASF AG (Ludwigshafen, Germany) (represented by: N. Levy, Barrister, J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, and C. Feddersen, Lawyer) and UCB SA (Brussels, Belguim) (represented by J. Bourgeois, J.-F. Bellis and M. Favart, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: in Case T-101/05 A. Whelan and F. Amato and in Case T-111/05 initially O. Beynet and F. Amato, and subsequently X. Lewis and F. Amato, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by the Commission Decision of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.533 — Choline chloride) (summary published in OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Disjoins Case T-112/05 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission from Cases T-101/05 and T-111/05 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls Article 1(b) and (f) of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.533 — Choline Chloride) in so far as it makes a finding of infringement against BASF AG and UCB SA during the period before 29 November 1994 in BASF's case and before 14 March 1994 in UCB's case;

               3.

               In Case T-101/05, sets the fine imposed on BASF at EUR 35,024 million;

               4.

               In Case T-111/05, sets the fine imposed on UCB at EUR 1,870 million;

               5.

               Dismisses the remainder of the applications;

               6.

               In Case T-101/05, orders the parties to bear their own costs;

               7.

               In Case T-111/05, orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by UCB.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-44/05: Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/15

         Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-44/05)
   (2005/C 82/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports or, in any case, by not having communicated such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 85 of 28 March 2002, p. 40.


title: Case T-315/12: Action brought on 13 July 2012 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Radiators for heating)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/21

         Action brought on 13 July 2012 — Tubes Radiatori v OHIM — Antrax It (Radiators for heating)
   (Case T-315/12)
   2012/C 273/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2012 in Case R 953/2011-3 and, thereby, declare that Community design No 000 169 370-0002 owned by TUBES RADIATORI Srl is valid, in so far as it is new and has individual character;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the Eurpopean Communities of 2 May 1991.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Radiators for heating — Community design No 169 370-0002

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Antrax It Srl

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Breach of Articles 4 and 9 of the Regulation on Community designs (CDR), in particular the ground for invalidity referred to in Article 25(1)(b) CDR, on the basis of lack of individual character for the purpose of Article 6(1)(b) CDR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community design invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002