title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2000 in Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98: Government of the Netherlands Antilles v Commission of the European Communities (Association of the overseas countries and territories — Regulation (EC) No 2352/97 — Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 — Application for annulment — Admissibility — OCT Decision — Safeguard measure — Causal link)

text:
8.4.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
                       of 15 December 1999
                                                                          in Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98: Government of the
in Case T-27/98: Albert Nardone v Commission of the                       Netherlands Antilles v Commission of the European
                    European Communities (1)                                                         Communities (1)
(Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos                  (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
and other substances — Rate of permanent partial invalidity               Regulation (EC) No 2352/97 — Regulation (EC)
      — Irregularity of the opinion of the medical board)                 No 2494/97 — Application for annulment — Admissibility
                                                                             — OCT Decision — Safeguard measure — Causal link)
                          (2000/C 102/41)                                                            (2000/C 102/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98: Government of the
In Case T-27/98: Albert Nardone, a former official of the                 Netherlands Antilles, represented by M. Slotboom and P.V.F.
Commission of the European Communities, residing at Piétrain              Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service at the
(Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure                  Chambers of M. Loesch, 11, Rue Goethe v Commission of the
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and P.L. Kuijper),
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4           supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad) —
Rue Beck, v Commission of the European Communities                        application in Case T-32/98, for the annulment of Commission
(Agents: Julian Currall and Jean-Luc Fagnart) — application for           Regulation (EC) No 2352/97 of 27 November 1997 introdu-
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 May 1997                     cing specific measures in respect of imports of rice originating
concerning a request for acknowledgement of the applicant’s               in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 326, p. 21)
occupational disease and fixing his rate of permanent partial             and, in Case T-41/98, for the annulment of Commission
invalidity at 6 % — the Court of First Instance (Second                   Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 of 12 December 1997 on the
Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, and C.W.                    issuing of import licences for rice falling within CN code 1006
Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given            and originating in the overseas countries and territories
a judgment on 15 December 1999, in which it:                              under the specific measures introduced by Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 2352/97 (OJ 1997 L 343, p. 17) — the Court (Third
                                                                          Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and
                                                                          J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 29 May 1997 concerning
                                                                          given a judgment on 10 February 2000, in which it:
     the applicant’s request for acknowledgement of his occupational
     disease;
                                                                          1. Joins Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98 for the purposes of the
                                                                               judgment;
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          2. Annuls Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2352/97 of 27 Nov-
                                                                               ember 1997 introducing specific measures in respect of imports
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                               of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories;
                                                                          3. Annuls Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2494/97 of
                                                                               12 December 1997 on the issuing of import licences for rice
                                                                               falling within CN code 1006 and originating in the overseas
                                                                               countries and territories under the specific measures introduced
                                                                               by Regulation (EC) No 2352/97;
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.4.2000
4. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the             3. Rules that there is no need to adjudicate in Case T-151/98;
     Netherlands Antilles Government in both cases;
                                                                           4. Orders the Commission to bear all the costs.
5. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs in both cases.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998 and C 358 of 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998 and C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 1 February 2000
                        of 3 February 2000
                                                                           in Case T-63/98: Transpo Maastricht BV and Marco Ooms
in Joined Cases T-46/98 and T-151/98: Council of Euro-                            v Commission of the European Communities (1)
pean Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) v the Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Inland waterway transport — Structural improvements —
                                                                           Application of Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 — Exemption)
(Action for annulment — European Regional Development
Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Failure to state
    reasons — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)                                            (2000/C 102/44)
                          (2000/C 102/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)                        In Case T-63/98: Transpo Maastricht BV, established in
                                                                           Maastricht, Netherlands and Marco Ooms, of Terneuzen,
                                                                           Netherlands, represented by M. J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam
Joined Cases T-46/98 and T-151/98, Council of European                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), an association formed                   Chambers of Fernand Entringer, 34A Rue Philippe II v
under French law, established in Paris, represented by Daniel              Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Lugard
M. Tomasevic and Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an             and L. Pignataro) — application for the annulment of the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia                 Commission’s decision of 13 February 1998 refusing to grant
Manhaeve, 56-58, Rue Charles Martel, against Commission of                 the applicants, in respect of the vessel Durance, an exemption
the European Communities, (Agent: Peter Oliver) — appli-                   under Article 8(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89
cation for the annulment of the Commission’s decision                      of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland
reducing the financial assistance granted to the applicant by              waterway transport (OJ 1989 L 116, p. 25) — the Court of
the European Regional Development Fund for the European                    First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke,
City Cooperation System Programme — the Court of First                     President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber),                     J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and                     a judgment on 1 February 2000, in which it:
P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar
has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, in which it:
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
1. Annuls the Commission decision contained in Debit Note
     No 970004505 F relating to the European City Cooperation              2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those
     System Project No 91/00/29/003, issued in December 1997                    incurred by the Commission jointly and severally.
     and amended on 15 July 1998, in so far as it concerns the
     refusal of cofinancing in respect of expenditure declared by the
     Commission to be ineligible, with the exception of expenditure
                                                                           (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
     connected with the Strasbourg General Assembly in the amounts
     of ECU 101 598 and ECU 256 882;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-46/98;


title: Case C-346/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 4(3) TEU — Article 288 TFEU — Directive 2000/60/EC — EU water policy — Article 4(1) — Prevention of deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water — Article 4(7) — Derogation from the prohibition of deterioration — Overriding public interest — Authorisation to construct a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm River (Austria) — Deterioration of the water status)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-346/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 4(3) TEU - Article 288 TFEU - Directive 2000/60/EC - EU water policy - Article 4(1) - Prevention of deterioration of the status of bodies of surface water - Article 4(7) - Derogation from the prohibition of deterioration - Overriding public interest - Authorisation to construct a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm River (Austria) - Deterioration of the water status))
   (2016/C 243/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, C. Hermes and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Z. Petzl and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Action brought on 28 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-203/98)

text:
25.7.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/19
Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, of Merriman White,              on 28 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
solicitors, 3 King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London              Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal
EC4Y 7DJ.                                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
    16 March 1998 in Case T-235/95 Goldstein v.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Commission (not published in the European Court
    Reports) in which the Court dismissed the application
    for an order seeking the annulment of the
    Commission's decision of 16 October 1995 refusing to           1. declare that, by requiring, pursuant to the second
    adopt interim measures to protect the applicant's                  paragraph of Article 3(3)(c) and (d) of the Royal
    legitimate interests.                                              Decree on Air Traffic of 15 March 1954, that
                                                                       Community operators be resident or established for
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs including those                one year in Belgium in order to register their aircraft
    in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.             there and by refusing to authorize flights requested by
                                                                       Community operators, thus unjustifiably or excessively
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    hindering the temporary or permanent provision of
                                                                       services in the field of air traffic other than for
The appellant maintains that no Advocate General was                   transport, Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
heard by the Court of First Instance and that the Court of             under Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty;
First Instance has thus breached Articles 111 and 114 of
its Rules of Procedure.
                                                                   2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
By order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 1997,
the decision on the plea of inadmissibility was reserved for
the final judgment on the ground that in the circumstances
of the case the procedure on the merits should be                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
continued before a decision was taken on the plea of
inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty: in dealing
The appellant asserts that the Court of First Instance has             with applications for flight authorizations from certain
no power to invalidate a decision of the Court of First                Community operators wishing to provide aerial
Instance unless exceptional situations exist and that, in              photography services over Belgium, the competent
ruling in the plea of admissibility without examining the              authorities, after having moreover explained that in
merits of the case, the Court of First Instance robbed him             any event authorization could be granted only for a
of a hearing and a report of the Judge-Rapporteur                      limited period and only for very specific purposes,
containing the factual and legal arguments and thereby                 ended up by automatically refusing such authorization.
constituted a denial of justice in so far as he had a                  The justification based on an absence of reciprocity
legitimate expectation to obtain a judgment in accordance              reveals a clear attitude on the part of the
with the Treaty obligations of the Court of First Instance.            administration which is contrary to the Community
                                                                       principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, the
Furthermore the appellant claims that the contested order              principle of the freedom to provide services requires,
distorted the clear sense of the evidence in order to                  moreover, that decisions, pursuant to Article 51 of the
conceal the existence of a medical licence fraud. The                  Royal Decree of 15 March 1954, as to the legal,
appellant also claims that the contested order                         financial and technical standing of a foreign individual
demonstrates that the Court of First Instance is guilty of             or undertaking should be taken by the Member State
misuse of power.                                                       of origin and that, therefore, the assessment by the
                                                                       authorities of the host Member State may not
The appellant asserts that the reasoning in the contested              disregard the requirements which the same operator
order is legally defective as it is not based on an                    already fulfils in its country of origin.
objectively determined situation in fact and law.
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                       the provisions of the Royal Decree of 1954 cited in the
                                                                       application are not compatible with Articles 6 and 52
Action brought on 28 May 1998 by the Commission of                     of the EC Treaty inasmuch as they discriminate
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        against foreign natural and legal persons and hinder
                           Belgium                                     their establishment by categorically precluding the
                                                                       registration of any aircraft belonging to foreign
                       (Case C-203/98)
                                                                       persons or companies during the first year of residence
                        (98/C 234/37)                                  in Belgium.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Case T-293/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission (Interim relief — Competition — Request for information — Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission
   (Case T-293/11 R)
   (Interim relief - Competition - Request for information - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 282/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Holcim AG (Hamburg, Germany) and Holcim Ltd (Rapperswil-Jona, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Niggemann and K. Gaßner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003 in Case C-25/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Katharina Rinke v Ärztekammer Hamburg (Equal treatment for men and women — Directives 86/457/EEC and 93/16/EEC — Obligation to undertake certain periods of full-time training during part-time training in general medical practice)

text:
C 264/14                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and              1.    Compliance with the prohibition of indirect discrimination on
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive                    grounds of sex is a condition governing the legality of all
      1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council                        measures adopted by the Community institutions.
      of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer
      information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of               2.    Examination of Question 1 has failed to disclose any factor
      the marketing of new passenger cars, the Italian Republic has                   capable of affecting the validity of the provision contained in
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                          Article 5(1) of Council Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 September
                                                                                1986 on specific training in general medical practice and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                   Article 34(1) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
                                                                                1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                                formal qualifications, according to which part-time training in
                                                                                general medical practice must include a certain number of
                                                                                periods of full-time training.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 9 September 2003
in Case C-25/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Katharina Rinke v
                     Ärztekammer Hamburg (1)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Equal treatment for men and women — Directives 86/457/
                                                                                of 9 September 2003
EEC and 93/16/EEC — Obligation to undertake certain
periods of full-time training during part-time training in
                       general medical practice)                                in Case C-151/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein): Landes-
                             (2003/C 264/23)                                                  hauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger (1)
                     (Language of the case: German)                             (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of
                                                                                workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Concepts of ‘working
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          time’ and ‘rest period’ — On-call service (‘Bereitschafts-
                     in the European Court Reports)                                         dienst’) provided by doctors in hospitals)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/24)
In Case C-25/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary                                         (Language of the case: German)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Katharina Rinke and Ärztekammer Hamburg on the interpret-
ation of Article 5 of Council Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 Sep-                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
tember 1986 on specific training in general medical practice                                        in the European Court Reports)
(OJ 1986 L 267, p. 26) and Article 34 of Council Directive 93/
16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of
doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993                      In Case C-151/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
L 165, p. 1), and on the compatibility of those provisions with                 EC by the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein (Germany)
the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
laid down in Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976                    court between Landeshauptstadt Kiel and Norbert Jaeger
on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                   on the interpretation of Council Directive 93/104/EC of
men and women as regards access to employment, vocational                       23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organis-
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976                         ation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) and, in particular,
L 39, p. 40), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  Articles 2(1) and (3) thereof, the Court, composed of: G.C. Ro-
President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and                      dríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rappor-
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                         teur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,                 C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                   N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                              Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                   Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
given a judgment on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:                    on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-535/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/56

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by Rafael Faet Oltra against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2012 in Case T-294/12 Rafael Faet Oltra v European Ombudsman
   (Case C-535/12 P)
   2013/C 225/105
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Rafael Faet Oltra (represented by: R. Faet Oltra, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman
   By order of 6 June 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-334/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Annex I — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas — IBA 2000 — Value — Quality of the data — Criteria — Margin of discretion — Manifestly insufficient classification — Wetlands)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-334/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Annex I - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas - IBA 2000 - Value - Quality of the data - Criteria - Margin of discretion - Manifestly insufficient classification - Wetlands)
   (2007/C 315/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and C. Jurgensen-Mercier, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and M. Lois, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Failure to comply with Article 4 of the directive concerning the designation of special areas of conservation — Areas established in Greece insufficient in number
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by classifying as special protection areas territories the number and overall size of which fall clearly short of the number and overall size of the territories fulfilling the preconditions for classification as special protection areas for the purposes of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended, inter alia, by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997,

                           —

                           by failing to designate special protection areas to offer protection to Krüper's nuthatch (Sitta krueperi), and

                           —

                           by classifying as special protection areas areas in which the shag (Mediterranean subspecies) (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus), black vulture (Aegypius monachus), lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina), imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca), long-legged buzzard (Buteo rufinus), Bonelli's eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus), lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni), Eleonora's falcon (Falco eleonorae), Lanner falcon (Falco biarmicus) and cinereous bunting (Emberiza cineracea) are insufficiently represented,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 25.9.2004.


title: Case C-113/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ragusa (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Mohamed Ali Cherni

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ragusa (Italy) lodged on 7 March 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Mohamed Ali Cherni
   (Case C-113/11)
   2011/C 238/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Ragusa (Italy)

      Party to the main proceedings

   Mohamed Ali Cherni
   By order of 26 May 2011 the Court of Justice removed the case from the register.


title: Case F-39/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 July 2009 — Lebedef v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Annual leave — Staff representative's activities — Secondment half-time for purposes of trade union representation — Representative activities under the Staff Regulations — Unauthorised absence — Deduction from annual leave entitlement — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/63

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 7 July 2009 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-39/08) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Annual leave - Staff representative's activities - Secondment half-time for purposes of trade union representation - Representative activities under the Staff Regulations - Unauthorised absence - Deduction from annual leave entitlement - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)
   2009/C 282/119
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, avocat)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of several decisions concerning the deduction of 32 days from the applicant's annual leave entitlement for 2007

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Lebedef to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 21.06.2008, p. 27.


               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/1

         (2007/C 140/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

      OJ C 96, 28.4.2007

      OJ C 95, 28.4.2007

      OJ C 82, 14.4.2007

      OJ C 69, 24.3.2007

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Liège (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 10 October 1995 in the case of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants (Inasti) v. Michel Picard (Case C-335/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 351 /3
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail,              Garanti'a Salarial on the basis that the full length of service is
Liege ( Second Chamber ) by judgment of that court of                     not taken into account but that some of the periods of
10 October 1995             in the case of Institut National              employment are excluded, notwithstanding the fact that
d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Independants                      work was performed uninterruptedly for an undertaking
                     (Inasti ) v. Michel Picard                           which was transferred, without infringing Article 1(1 ) and
                          ( Case C-335 /95 )                              the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 3 ) of Council
                                                                          Directive 77/ 187/EEC ?
                             ( 95/C 351 /05 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
Travail ( Higher Labour Court), Liege ( Second Chamber ) of
10 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 23 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs                 Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 20 October 1995
Independants ( Inasti ) v. Michel Picard on the following                 in the Case of 1 . Parfums Christian Dior SA, 2 . Parfums
questions :                                                                                Christian Dior BV v. Evora BY
                                                                                ( Case C-337/95 )
1 . Does Article 36 ( 4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                                              ( 95/C 351 /07 )
     No 574/72 (') laying down the procedure for
     implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 on the
     application of social security schemes to employed                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     persons, to self-employed persons and to members of                  European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
     their families moving within the Community lay down a                der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
     general independent rule which applies irrespective of               20 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     compliance with the provisions of Article 36 (1 ), ( 2 ) and         on 26 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     ( 3 )?
                                                                          1 . Parfums Christian Dior SA, established in Paris,
                                                                          2 . Parfums Christian Dior BV, established at Rotterdam, v.
                                                                          Evora BV on the following questions :
2 . If the reply to the first question is in the negative , must an
     employed or a self-employed person who cannot,
     without prior recognition of entitlement to a pension by             ( a ) where, in proceedings relating to trade marks in one of
                                                                                the    Benelux   countries    in   connection     with    the
     the competent institution of another Member State ( in
     the present case , the Member State of which he is a                        interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade
     national ), obtain the recognition of entitlement to a                      Marks, a question relating to the interpretation of the
     pension by the competent institution of his State of                        First Council Directive 89/ 104/EEC ( ] ) of 21 December
     residence , nevertheless submit a claim in the State of                     1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
     residence    in    order      for  benefits  to   be  awarded               relating to trade marks arises, is the highest national
     concurrently in both States ?                                               court or the Benelux Court to be regarded as the court
                                                                                or tribunal of the Member State against whose
                                                                                decisions there is no remedy under national law and
(') O J No L 74 , p . 1 .
                                                                                which is therefore obliged under the third paragraph of
                                                                                Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty to make a reference to the
                                                                                Court of Justice ?
                                                                           ( b ) Is it in keeping with the system of the aforementioned
                                                                                Directive , in particular Articles 5 , 6 and 7 thereof, to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo                          assume that, where it is a question of the resale of goods
Social No 16 by order of that court of 1 September 1995 in                       which have been put on the market in the Community
the case of Pedro Burdalo and Others against Fondo de                            under a trade mark by the trade mark proprietor or
                           Garantia Salarial
                                                                                with his consent, the reseller is also free to use that trade
                             Case C-336/95 )                                     mark for the purposes of bringing such further
                              ( 95/C 351 /06 )                                   commercialization to the attention of the public ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     (c ) In the event that question ( b ) is answered in the
 European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social                       affirmative, do exceptions exist to that rule ?
 ( Social Court ) No 16 of 1 September 1995 , which was
 received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1995 , for a                 ( d ) In the event that question ( c ) is answered in the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Pedro Burdalo and Others                      affirmative, is there room for an exception where the
 against Fondo de Garanti'a Salarial on the following                             advertising function of the trade mark is endangered by
 question :                                                                      the fact that, as a result of the manner in which the
                                                                                reseller uses the trade mark in order to attract public
 may the legislation or the case-law of a Member State reduce                     attention in that way, he damages the luxurious and
 the benefits which must be awarded by the Fondo de                               prestigious image of the trade mark ?


?.. 9    95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 229/ 17
Appeal brought on 12 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-74/93 and
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                                                C-75/93 ( ] )
2 May 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European                                            95/C 229/37 )
Communities (Third Chamber extended composition) in
Joined Cases T-163/94 between NTN Corporation and the
Council of the European Union and T-165/94 between                     By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd and the Council of the European                     of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                Union                                  ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
                                                                       C-74/93 and C-75/93 : Commission of the European
                        ( Case C-245/95 P)                             Communities v. Council of the European Union, supported
                             95/C 229/35                               by Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, European
                                                                       Parliament, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 1995 by              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Federal Republic
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                of Germany.
(Third Chamber extended composition ) in Joined Cases
T-l 63/94 between NTN Corporation and the Council of the               ( ] ) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
European Union and T-165/94 between Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd
and the Council of the European Union, was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eric White and Nicholas
Khan, acting as agents, with an address for service in                         Removal from the register of Case C-442/93 (*)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                                 95/C 229/38 )
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                       By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Court of
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance,               from the register of Case C-442/93 ( reference for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance,                  de la Audiencia Nacional ( Madrid, Spain )): Criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Rafael Martin Calvo Martinicorena .
— order the Applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
that it :
  ( i ) held that a regulation modifying existing anti-dumping                 Removal from the register of Case C-208/94 (*)
        duties following a review initiated pursuant to
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/39 )
        Articles 14 and 15 of the Basic Regulation must
        establish injury within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
        the Basic Regulation;                                          By order of 19 May 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 or, in the alternative, it further erred in law in that it:            from the register of Case C-208/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
 ( ii ) held that the infringement of Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the
        Basic Regulation necessarily entailed the annulment of          f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
        the contested Regulation .
         Removal from the register of Case C-367/92 H                          Removal from the register of Case C-2 70/94 (*)
                            ( 95/C 229/36 )                                                         ( 95/C 229/40 )
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 By order of 18 May 1995 the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-367/92 : French Republic v.                from the register of Case C-270/94 : Commission of the
 Commission of the European Communities.                                European Communities v. Italian Republic .
  H OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .                                        (») OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .


title: Case T-264/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — 2007 appraisal and promotion period — Decision of the Appeals Committee — Psychological harassment — Reasonable period — Claim for setting aside — Claim for damages)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-264/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - 2007 appraisal and promotion period - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Psychological harassment - Reasonable period - Claim for setting aside - Claim for damages)
   2013/C 313/41
   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: initially by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, and subsequently by Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, 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) in Case F-59/09 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-59/09 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claims seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result of his harassment by the EIB;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-222/00: Action brought on 5 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 233/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
Action brought on 5 June 2000 by the Commission of the                   to the objective pursued. However, the obligation of forwar-
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                     ding, in respect of each admission, documents which the
                                                                         Provincial Architects Council already has in its possession (for
                                                                         example, the diploma) is an additional burden which runs
                         (Case C-222/00)                                 counter to Article 22(4) of the directive where such documents
                                                                         are less than 12 months old. Moreover, the Belgian rules
                         (2000/C 233/34)                                 cannot require payment of a registration fee of BEF 6 000 by
                                                                         architects established in a Member State other than Belgium
                                                                         who register on the ‘special register’ since the third paragraph
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before              of Article 22(1) clearly requires that such registration should
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June               take place without any additional costs. Those rules also
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      infringe Article 49 EC.
represented by Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                (The second plea in law alleging that the principle of provision
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       of a ‘single service’ is being applied)
                                                                         The Belgian Government states that that principle is no longer
The applicant claims that the Court should                               applied; it is however not disputed that a mere circular
                                                                         — which has moreover never been communicated to the
1.    Declare that,                                                      Commission — is not sufficient to bring to an end the legal
                                                                         uncertainty arising from the lack of binding legislation in that
                                                                         respect.
      —     by maintaining in force a procedure which makes
            registration of architects lawfully established in
            another Member State on the ‘special register’ of            (The third plea in law alleging that admission to the register
            architects providing their services, as provided for in      was refused on the ground that the principle that the activities
            Article 22(1) of Directive 85/334/EEC(1), subject to         of architects and contractors are mutually incompatible was
            production of the documents listed in Article 22(3)          not observed)
            even where those documents have already been
            communicated less than 12 months previously and
            to the payment of registration fees;                         The directive does not preclude a Member State from making
                                                                         the profession of architect incompatible with that of building
                                                                         contractor or trader in construction materials and requiring
      —     by maintaining in force a procedure which makes it           compliance from architects established in another Member
            impossible for architects established in Member              State who provide services in the first Member State. However,
            States other than Belgium to provide several services        in order to ensure compliance, the administration has available
            simultaneously within Belgium;                               means which are less restrictive than the requirement to
                                                                         amend the statutes of the architect’s firm consultation of the
      —     by making admission to the register of service               agreement between the client and the architect should be
            providers of an architect established in a Member            sufficient in that regard.
            State who wishes to provide services in Belgium
            subject to amendment of the statutes of that archi-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15.
            tect’s firm without ascertaining beforehand whether
            that architect was in a position to comply in
            Belgium with Belgian rules prohibiting persons
            from simultaneously practising as architects and
            contractors;
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the abovementioned directive.                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                         Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 1a Subsecção by or-
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     der of that court of 10 May 1999 in the case of Director-
                                                                         Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social
                                                                         Europeu against Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de
                                                                                Serviços SA
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-223/00)
(The first plea in law alleging that admission to the register is                                  (2000/C 233/35)
not practically automatic)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Notification of the provision of services must not be made               European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
subject to conditions which are disproportionate or unrelated            Administrativo, 1a Secção, 1a Subsecção (First Sub-Chamber


title: Case T-576/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Larymnis Larko v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/53

      Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Larymnis Larko v Commission
      (Case T-576/14)
      (2014/C 395/66)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Εllininiki Μetalleftiki kai Μetallourgiki Larymnis Larko SA (Kallithea Attikis, Greece) (represented by: V. Koulouris, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul and set aside the Commission Decision of 27 March 2014 [SG–Greffe (2014) D/4628/28/03/2014] in connection with the sale of certain assets of the limited company named ‘General Mining and Metallurgical Company Larko’ [ΝΕW LARKO], Case number SA.37954 (2013/N) (OJ 23/05/2014, C 156) and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action the applicant, in the first place, maintains that it has a clear legal interest to seek the annulment of the contested decision, since the decision affects it directly and distinguishes the applicant individually just as in the case of the person addressed, and, in the second place, puts forward three pleas in law in support of annulment.

                  1.

                  The first plea in law is based on the infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1) The applicant maintains that the Commission decided by the contested act that the sale notified by the Hellenic Republic of assets of ΝΕW LARKO described in the decision will not lead to economic continuity between it and the owner(s) of the assets which will be sold. First, the Commission erroneously considers that the assets being sold represent only a part of the activities of ΝΕW LARKO, whereas the truth is that those assets represent the main part of its activities and that those which remain in the possession of the transferor are economically worthless for the most part and that it is impossible for any productive use to be made of them in isolation. Thus, the plant at Larymna (for sale in connection with the proposed privatisation) is its principal asset, mainly because it is there that all the ore extracted at the sites of ΝΕW LARKO in the whole of Greece is brought and there alone that smelting takes place. Second, the contested decision also erred in accepting the information that the assets which will be auctioned will not belong to ΝΕW LARKO but to the Greek State, whereas the truth is that the ore-smelting plant at Larymna, both the general ore-smelting installations and the smelter support installations, will never fall into the ownership of the Greek State but will remain even after the possible expiry of the contract for the lease of mining rights in the ownership of ΝΕW LARKO, because those rights are entirely owned by it. As a direct consequence of the above consideration the business of ΝΕW LARKO will be continued by the new entity/purchaser, so that it is inadmissible that the latter should be relieved of the obligation to pay to the applicant the amounts which the transferring ΝΕW LARKO owes to it.

                  2.

                  The second plea in law is based on the infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU. The applicant maintains that the reasons stated in the contested decision are inadequate, since there is no examination whatsoever of whether the transfer of assets at issue on the basis of the proposed privatisation which was reviewed by the Commission distorts or threatens to distort competition. The Commission failed to examine the product market, and moreover failed to identify that market and the sector of production. The Commission was satisfied with statements from the Greek State, which it in no way investigated as it ought to have done. It did not make even the most rudimentary enquiry to obtain the opinion of ΝΕW LARKO, although it is directly affected by the Commission’s decision, thereby infringing ΝΕW LARKO’s fundamental rights, such as the right to equal treatment vis-à-vis the Greek State, the principle of legitimate expectations as to the conduct of EU institutions, and its right to be heard, before issuing a decision which affects it.

                  3.

                  The second plea in law is based on the argument that the contested decision contains contradictory statements the result of which is that the decision is unjustified and should be annulled. Specifically, the applicant maintains that, while the Commission in the contested decision accepts that all the assets to be sold should be viewed as the whole, since the Commission connects the termination of the lease of mining rights as part of the proposed privatisation with the parallel auctioning and application of the [‘shoot-out’] clause, the Commission then decides that the important value is book value, in order to arrive at the conclusion that, since the ratio of the sold assets to the remaining assets, erroneously, is in the proportion of 1 to 3 in terms of book value, for that reason there is no continuity of economic activity. Further, the Commission gives no reasons all in the decision for its taking the view that the employment contracts of the staff of NEW LARKO are not transferred to the acquiring entity, fundamentally disregarding the ‘Union acquis’ on that subject.

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94: Metsä-Serla Oy and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine)

text:
4.7.98                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 209/35
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                  Mills Ltd, established at Valkeakoski, Finland, Tampella
Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal                   Corporation, established at Tampere, Finland, Oy Kyro
and Dirk Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of                    AB, established at Kyröskoski, Finland, represented
Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating                initially by Hans Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Voges,
to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/              Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, then by Hans Hellmann and
33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð                  Hans-Joachim Hellmann, Rechtsanwälte, Karlsruhe, with
the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),                      an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P.            Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v. Commission of the
BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki, and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.             European       Communities      (Agents:   initially    Bernd
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Langeheine and Richard Lyal, then by Richard Lyal and
given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:                          Dirk Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth              to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
     paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/               33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð
     601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under            the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð                       composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber,
     Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:             C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                      J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                      given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
     The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith
     bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not
     already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in                1. Dismisses the applications as unfounded in so far as
     relation to their cartonboard activities from any                     they seek annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/
     agreement or concerted practice which may have the                    EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
     same or a similar object or effect, including any                     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
     exchange of commercial information:                                   Cartonboard).
     (a) by which the participants are directly or
           indirectly informed of the production, sales, order        2. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible in so far as
           backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,             they seek reduction of the fine imposed by Article 3 of
           costs or marketing plans of other individual                    that decision.
           producers.
     Any scheme for the exchange of general information               3. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
     to which they subscribe, such as the Fides sytem or its
     successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any               (1) OJ C 386, 31.12.1994.
     information from which the behaviour of individual
     producers can be identified.'.
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
     claims.
3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 May 1998
(1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
                                                                      in Case T-347/94: Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft mbH
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                      (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð
                                                                      Concept of agreement Ð Information exchange Ð Order
                                                                      Ð Fine Ð Determination of the amount Ð Statement of
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             reasons Ð Extenuating circumstances Ð Rights of the
                         of 14 May 1998                               defence Ð Cooperation during the administrative
                                                                                procedure Ð Principle of equal treatment)
in Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and
T-342/94: Metsä-Serla Oy and Others v. Commission of                                          (98/C 209/75)
                  the European Communities (1)
(Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 Ð Joint and several                                (Language of the case: German)
                liability for payment of the fine)
                           (98/C 209/74)                              In Case T-347/94: Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft mbH,
                                                                      established at Vienna, represented initially by Otfried
                (Language of the case: German)                        Lieberknecht,       Burkhard     Richter,  Klaus       Benner,
                                                                      Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, and by Michel Waelbroeck
In Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/               and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an
94: Metsä-Serla Oy, established at Helsinki, United Paper             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of


title: Case T-228/13: Action brought on 19 April 2013 — NIIT Insurance Technologies v OHIM (EXACT)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/26

         Action brought on 19 April 2013 — NIIT Insurance Technologies v OHIM (EXACT)
   (Case T-228/13)
   2013/C 189/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NIIT Insurance Technologies Ltd. (London, United Kingdom) (represented by M. Wirtz, lawyer)

      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 18 February 2013 in Case R 1307/2012-4 concerning Community trade mark registration 010355501, Word: EXACT and the previous decision of the Trade Marks Department of OHIM of 29 May 2012 concerning Community trade mark registration 010355501, Word: EXACT, in so far as the trade mark was refused protection;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word Mark EXACT for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 10 355 501

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the principle of equal treatment and of Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concluded in Rome on 4 November 1950, in the version of Protocol 11, which entered into force on 1 November 1998;

               —

               Infringement of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-405/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms Tingsrätt, Sweden): Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) (Free movement of goods — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — Freedom to provide services — Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) — Swedish legislation on the advertising of alcoholic beverages — Selling arrangements — Measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction — Justification in the interest of the protection of health)

text:
C 173/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.   It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     amendment, Article 43 EC) for the tax legislation of a Member
     State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, to afford
     companies resident in that Member State the possibility of                                      (Sixth Chamber)
     benefiting from a taxation regime allowing them to pay
     dividends to their parent company without having to pay                                         of 8 March 2001
     advance corporation tax where their parent company is also
     resident in that Member State but to deny them that possibility
     where their parent company has its seat in another Member             in Case C-405/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     State.                                                                the Stockholms Tingsrätt, Sweden): Konsumentom-
                                                                           budsmannen (KO) v Gourmet International Products AB
                                                                                (GIP) (1)
2.   Where a subsidiary resident in one Member State has been
     obliged to pay advance corporation tax in respect of dividends
                                                                           (Free movement of goods — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
     paid to its parent company having its seat in another Member
                                                                           Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
     State even though, in similar circumstances, the subsidiaries of
                                                                           — Freedom to provide services — Articles 56 and 59 of the
     parent companies resident in the first Member State were
                                                                           EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49
     entitled to opt for a taxation regime that allowed them to avoid
                                                                           EC) — Swedish legislation on the advertising of alcoholic
     that obligation, Article 52 of the Treaty requires that resident
                                                                           beverages — Selling arrangements — Measure having an
     subsidiaries and their non-resident parent companies should
                                                                           effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction — Justification
     have an effective legal remedy in order to obtain reimbursement
                                                                                in the interest of the protection of health)
     or reparation of the financial loss which they have sustained
     and from which the authorities of the Member State concerned
     have benefited as a result of the advance payment of tax by the                                  (2001/C 173/23)
     subsidiaries.
     The mere fact that the sole object of such an action is the                               (Language of the case: Swedish)
     payment of interest equivalent to the financial loss suffered as a
     result of the loss of use of the sums paid prematurely does not
     constitute a ground for dismissing such an action.                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     While, in the absence of Community rules, it is for the domestic
     legal system of the Member State concerned to lay down the            In Case C-405/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     detailed procedural rules governing such actions, including           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Stockholms
     ancillary questions such as the payment of interest, those rules      Tingsrätt, Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the   pending before that court between Konsumentombudsmannen
     exercise of rights conferred by Community law.                        (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Articles 30, 36, 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 30 EC, 46 EC and 49
3.   It is contrary to Community law for a national court to refuse        EC), — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
     or reduce a claim brought before it by a resident subsidiary          President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-
     and its non-resident parent company for reimbursement or              teur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
     reparation of the financial loss which they have suffered as a        General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
     consequence of the advance payment of corporation tax by the          has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it has ruled:
     subsidiary, on the sole ground that they did not apply to the
     tax authorities in order to benefit from the taxation regime          Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
     which would have exempted the subsidiary from making                  Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty
     payments in advance and that they therefore did not make use          (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) do not preclude
     of the legal remedies available to them to challenge the refusals     a prohibition on the advertising of alcoholic beverages such as that
     of the tax authorities, by invoking the primacy and direct effect     laid down in Article 2 of Lagen 1978:763 med vissa bestämmelser
     of the provisions of Community law, where upon any view               om marknadsföring av alkoholdrycker (Swedish Law laying down
     national law denied resident subsidiaries and their non-resident      provisions on the Marketing of Alcoholic Beverages), as amended,
     parent companies the benefit of that taxation regime.                 unless it is apparent that, in the circumstances of law and of fact
                                                                           which characterise the situation in the Member State concerned, the
                                                                           protection of public health against the harmful effects of alcohol can
                                                                           be ensured by measures having less effect on intra-Community trade.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-86/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): H. J. A. M. van Iersel (liquidator of Pluimvee- en wildwerkende industrie De Venhorst BV) v. Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Health inspections and controls - Circumstances in which an undertaking is obliged to pay the fee for cutting operations)

text:
11 . 1 . 97  .     I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/3
Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam — on the interpretation of                   from membership of the occupational scheme in
Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Protocol 2 to Article 119                 breach of Article 119 of the Treaty, those rights being
of the Treaty establishing the European Union — the                        governed by the judgment in Bilka.
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and             (!) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 , p . 12 .
P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it has
ruled :
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1 . The right to join an occupational pension scheme falls                                    (Fourth Chamber)
     within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and
     is therefore covered by the prohibition of                                              of 24 October 1996
     discrimination laid down therein. That interpretation
                                                                     in Case C-86/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     does not depend on the purposes of the national                 the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): H. J. A. M.
     legislation enabling membership to be made                      van Iersel ( liquidator of Pluimvee- en wildwerkende
     compulsory or on the fact that the employer lodged an           industrie . De Venhorst BV) v. Staatssecretaris , van
     objection to the decision to make such membership                           Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( 1 )
     compulsory or on his having conducted an enquiry
     among his employees with a view to seeking                      (Health inspections and controls — Circumstances in
     exemption from compulsory membership.                           which an undertaking is obliged to pay the fee for cutting
                                                                                operations)
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/05
2. The limitation of the effects in time of the Barber
     judgment (Case C-262/88) does not apply to the right                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
     to join an occupational pension scheme, such as that
     at issue in the main proceedings, or to the right to
     payment of a retirement pension where the worker                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     was excluded from membership of the scheme in                             published in the European Court Reports)
     breach of Article 119 of the Treaty.
                                                                     In Case C-86/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the College van Beroep
3 . The administrators of an occupational pension scheme             voor het Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for Trade
     must, like the employer, comply with Article 119 of             and Industry, the Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in
     the Treaty and workers who are discriminated against            the proceedings pending , before that court between
     may assert their rights directly against those                  H. J. A. M. van Iersel ( liquidator of Pluimvee- en
     administrators.                                                 wildwerkende industrie De Venhorst BV) and
                                                                     Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
                                                                     — on the interpretation of Council Decision 88/408/EEC
                                                                     of 15 June 1988 on the levels of the fees to be charged for
4 . The fact that a worker can claim retroactive                     health inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to
     membership of an occupational pension scheme does               Directive 85/73/EEC ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),
     not enable him to avoid paying contributions for the            composed of: J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), President of the
     period of membership concerned.                                 Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges;
                                                                     F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                     given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it has
                                                                     ruled :
5 . The national rules relating to time-limits for bringing
     actions under national law may be relied on against             Article 3 (1 ) of Council Decision 88/408/EEC of 15 June
     workers who assert their right to join an occupational          1988 on the levels of the fees to be charged for health
     pension scheme or to payment of a retirement pension,           inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to
     provided that they are not less favourable for such             Directive 85/73/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that
     actions than for similar domestic actions and that they         the part of the fees referred to therein is payable only in
     do not render the exercise of rights conferred by               respect of meat which is actually boned or cut during the
     Community law excessively difficult or impossible in            production stage between the slaughter of the animal and
     practice.                                                       the storage of the meat.
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 14 .
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 22 . 7. 1988 , p . 24 .
6 . Protocol 2 does not affect the right to join an
     occupational pension scheme or the right to draw a
     retirement pension where the worker was excluded


20.2.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/33
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               register of Case T-141/98: Filippos Pierros v. Commission
Case T-140/98: H v. Commission of the European                     of the European Communities.
Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 358, 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 340, 7.11.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-167/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/75)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/98 (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                       (1999/C 48/74)
                                                                   By order of 27 November 1998, the President of the Third
                (Language of the case: Greek)                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-167/98: Luc Verheyden v. Commission of the
By order of 18 November 1998, the President of the                 European Communities.
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                  (1) OJ C 378, 5.12.1998.